Socio-technical transitions in farming: key concepts - Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in Agriculture: Case Studies from Europe - page 20

Since the existing socio-technical regime is stabilized in many ways (for example
through technical standards, sunk costs by key players who have no incentive to change,
production structures, industry networks, and user practices), transitions do not come about
easily. However, over time a regime will display weaknesses, often as a result of
unintended side-effects that accumulate and become problematic. As persistent problems
become increasingly obvious, they can lead to pressure from the socio-technical landscape
to alter practices. This creates a window of opportunity for a niche to break through,
especially if the regime is not able to adequately address these persistent problems.
When analysing emerging transitions it is particularly important to keep in mind that
regimes are not homogeneous and/or monolithic. Indeed, whereas regimes may appear as
coherent blocks from the outside (and tend to represent themselves that way), there are
often internal tensions, disagreement and conflicts of interest (Geels, 2011). An example
may be the organizations that represent agriculture (e.g. Ministry of Agriculture, Chamber
of Agriculture) who tend to project a unified image. Yet, not all farmers adhere to the
modernization paradigm and a number follow different logics and farming styles. Thus,
regimes have coherence, shared values and similarity but on the other hand contain variety,
disagreement on specific issues, debate and internal conflict (Geels, 2011). These tensions
can be an opportunity for niche actors to identify sympathetic regime actors and gain
support (Diaz et al. , 2013).
Furthermore, when analysing emerging transitions it is important to pay attention to the
interactions between regimes (Geels, 2011). Indeed, the growth of niches often requires
interaction between two (or more) regimes, for example between agriculture and energy
regimes in the case of biofuels. Thus, the positive or negative interaction between regimes
can enable an emerging transition. However, niche actors behind an emerging transition
may also actively construct new relationships between previously separate regimes, as part
of their proposal to radically alter the dominant regime.
Anchoring: initiating and strengthening links between a niche and the regime
Smith (2007) has pointed out that there has been insufficient consideration of the processes
by which niches and regimes interact and are interdependent, and has therefore focused on
the 'linking' between niche and regime. Elzen et al. (2012) proposed the term 'anchoring'
for emerging forms of linking, reserving the term 'linking' for later stages when the
interaction is more robust.
Building on the three analytical dimensions that can be distinguished when analysing
the regime (see Fig. 2.1) Elzen et al. (2012) propose that anchoring can occur in each of
these dimensions. They therefore suggest distinguishing between 'technological anchoring',
such as when the technological characteristics are further defined; 'network anchoring'
where changes occur in the network of actors that carry the niche (for instance through
expansion of the network or intensified exchanges); and 'institutional anchoring' where
new rules are developed, including new beliefs, new views of a problem, or new
regulations, standards or policies. Understanding the variety of ways in which a niche may
anchor and then link to a regime (or several regimes) is relevant for better understanding
how desirable changes may be induced (Elzen et al. , 2012).