As the change from traditional dairy farming to nature inclusive dairy farming concerns the transition to a new system (Smits et al., 2019), the multi-level perspective (MLP) on sustainable transitions will be discussed. To extrapolate the socio-technical regime that is important in the MLP theory, the policy arrangement approach forms the second part of the theoretical framework.
The multi-level perspective on transitions
The multi-level perspective on sustainable transitions by Geels describes the changes in both environmental and societal fields as socio-technical transitions (figure 8). Niche-innovations imply changes in the current socio-technical regime and a window of opportunity opens. This gives space for a niche innovation to gain more importance and influence the current regime that exists. The new regime that will eventually become the norm influences at a higher scale the socio-technical landscape, or exogenous context (Geels, 2011). Regimes and niches are easier to change than a complete socio-technical landscape, as these two levels are less comprehensive than the landscape level (Shove et al., 2012). To transform the present-day global food system towards a more sustainable one, innovation, and experimentation should therefore be encouraged to create space for new developments to succeed (Desa & Jia, 2020).
Visions of the future are important in enabling structural change and experiments can be used to try out new pathways (Meadowcroft, 2009; Rotmans & Kemp, 2003). Landscapes are however increasingly harder to change as different dimensions are more and more interlinked and the path is more dependent (Shove et al., 2012). Such situations of path dependency or a ‘lock-in’ in the current socio-technical system can complicate the transformation to a more sustainable system (Meadowcroft, 2009). This can also be seen in agriculture in the Netherlands, as the focus on producing more food after the second World War has formed the current landscape and this path is difficult to deviate from (Vrolijk et al., 2020). Path dependency makes it complex for farmers to make a structural change in their business model. To steer towards a transition the state could therefore initiate a public debate and hold stronger control over the complete chain. Decentralising practices, meaning what can be decided locally should be decided locally, can also improve the speed of transitions (Smits et al., 2019).
23 Figure 8: The multi-level perspective on transitions (Geels, 2011, p. 28)
A small win’s approach can be relevant to step out of the macro-level of the landscape in Geels’ figure.
Termeer and Dewulf (2019) refer to the paper of Weick (1984) that first coined this approach. The basis is that even the smallest wins can contribute to a larger transition: they often even originate from the most innovative ideas. The visible outcome of one small win may energize the motivation of other actors, activate learning by doing mechanisms, and attract new resources as it appears to be successful (Termeer & Dewulf, 2019).
No actor can steer a transition alone, but Rotmans et al. (2001) emphasise that governments should play a central role in transition management by inspiring and encouraging other actors to participate.
They can introduce regulations to influence the market and stimulate niche management and experiments. Actors that initiate change are policy entrepreneurs, as their proactive attitude creates windows of opportunity for the current system to change. The latter is referred to as internal change, but change can also occur due to external change when a shock event happens, surrounding policy domains go through developments, or when political modernisation occurs. This can be seen in the schematic overview in figure 9 (Arnouts et al., 2012).
Figure 9: Explanatory factors for governance shifts (Arnouts et al., 2012, p. 47)
The MLP does not specifically mention scales but divides transitions into three levels. It is often assumed that the landscape level refers to the international scale, the regime to national, and niches to local features. However, these assumptions are not straightforward, as the different levels are constituted of social, institutional, and actor networks (Raven et al., 2012). The geographical and spatial context of sustainability transitions is therefore interesting to consider, because why do transitions occur in one place and not in another? Historical path dependencies, local cultures, and localised institutions can all play a role in answering this question. Informal localised institutions can be defined as norms, values, and practices bound to a certain location (Hansen & Coenen, 2014). Raven et al. (2012) therefore propose a multi-scalar MLP, where different scales of time, space, and structure exist in different levels (figure 10). Striking is especially the difference in the time it takes for a particular level to go through change. While the niche level takes zero to ten years to change, a regime can take decades and the landscape even a longer period.
Figure 10: Scales and levels in the MLP (Raven et al., 2012, p. 67) The Policy Arrangement Approach
Policy is an important aspect building up the regime, as also indicated in figure 8. Although policies are often analysed from a strategic point of view, structural political changes are also of considerate importance. The policy arrangement framework combines both (Arts et al., 2006). A policy arrangement is defined as “the temporary stabilisation of the content and organisation of a particular policy domain at a certain policy level or several policy levels in case of multi-level governance” (Leroy
& Arts, 2006, p. 13). Policy arrangements contain a multi-level character, meaning they cannot be coupled to one particular policy level. The different policies at different levels influence each other, making the process of policy-making more complex. One explanation for this increased complexity is the internationalisation that has faded national boundaries. The aim of the policy arrangement
25 approach (PAA) is to analyse policy arrangements and the way they are constituted in ongoing
processes of social and political change (Arts et al., 2006). The PAA analyses institutional patterns of change and stabilisation, as policy arrangements are institutional concepts (Leroy & Arts, 2006). Or, as Liefferink (2006, p. 45) describes it: “The overall objective of the policy arrangements approach is to analytically link changes in day-to-day policy practices to broader, structural changes in contemporary society”.
The policy domain consists of four dimensions that are interrelated in understanding policy arrangements (figure 11): actors and their coalitions; the division of power (referring to resources and influence) between these actors; the rules of the game, both political interaction and formal procedures; and the current discourse, meaning the norms, values and views of the actors involved.
An example of a discourse that influenced policy arrangements is the concept of sustainable development, and for rules of the game can be thought of new agreements of the European Union.
These four domains hold temporary stability but can be changed over time. When the domains are stable for a longer period, there is a policy arrangement (Liefferink, 2006).
Figure 11: The tetrahedron that symbolises the connection between the four dimensions of a policy arrangement (Liefferink, 2006, p. 48)
Since the 1980s, concepts such as sustainability and biodiversity have been introduced and influence the discourse of environmental policies. Environmental problems are defined differently since this discursive turn as they are more linked to social, technological, and economic issues, and increasingly linked to other policy domains such as agriculture (Leroy & Arts, 2006). Structural changes in individual policy arrangements can therefore invoke changes in a larger social, cultural, economic, or political context (Liefferink, 2006). At the same time, the matter of environmental policy became one of shared responsibility, instead of a state-dominated approach, and new rules of policymaking were introduced (Leroy & Arts, 2006). Policymakers are increasingly focusing on designing policy for the long-term, to instigate a sustainability transition and a change in societal systems. In transition management, this long-term vision is combined with short-term experimental learning to find possibilities of realising a future vision (Voß et al., 2009). However, as environmental policy has become a more transnational and transboundary practice, resulting in a multi-level field of policy making, this is increasingly difficult (Leroy & Arts, 2006). Several issues play a role in designing long-term policy in transition management:
politics, context, and design as a process. The actors with political power display uncertainty in policymaking, as it is hard for them to make evolutionary decisions as they seek democratic legitimacy from society. The context of policy design refers to the existing patterns and historic structures of policies that might be difficult to change. The process of long-term policy-making is one of distributed agency, meaning that many actors and stakeholders are involved. This causes struggles as not everyone has the same amount of power. Next to that, policies are interpreted flexibly, which is on the one hand a strength but on the other hand a weakness (Voß et al., 2009).