Socio-technical transitions in farming: key concepts - Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in Agriculture: Case Studies from Europe - page 27

Sustainability: politics and definitions
One of the key issues in transitions to sustainability is the process involved in identifying
which problems need to be addressed and selecting suitable approaches to address them.
This is a political, constructed and often contested process. Indeed, there is typically ample
scope for debate over the sustainability of both incumbent regime and alternative niches
(Stirling and Smith, 2008). Sustainability appraisals are necessarily undertaken from
different positions and perspectives. Overall goals for sustainability, such as preservation of
biodiversity or reducing the environmental impact of agricultural practices, often achieve
broad rhetorical consensus. However, more specific criteria tend to be hotly contested with
profound implications for the favoured pathways. A typical example is the current debate
regarding the sustainability of biofuel production, which is rife with ambiguities on the
choice of indicators, the projected future environmental and societal impact, and the
relative weighing of effects in developed and emerging countries.
Regarding agriculture, there are obviously several contending paradigms (van der
Ploeg, 2009; Freibauer et al. , 2011; Kitchen and Marsden, 2011; Levidow, 2011). There is
ample discussion, for example, on whether a transition to sustainability can be achieved by
focusing on technological artefacts (e.g. GMOs, nanotechnology, precision agriculture) or
whether it is more effective to focus on consumer behaviour, social relations, allocation
rights, institutional structures and cultural perspectives. Each of these elements is part of a
discourse, and there is intense debate as to which standards are suitable, as well as which
criteria adequately reflect sustainability. Thus, transitions both presuppose and bring about
a shift in standards of legitimacy.
These standards of legitimacy are reflected in the conceptual frames that define which
problems are persistent (while ignoring and downplaying others), and which solutions are
appropriate to address the problems. As a result, emerging transitions tend to be rooted in
contrasting sets of interests and prospects, different values, and cognitive frames. A societal
discourse ensues, often by influential members of the established regime (such as agri-
business groups, banks, state agencies, expert systems or researchers). Regime actors are
likely to attempt to block transitions that are advocated as necessary by particular lobbies,
and to support others by arguing that they are 'objectively necessary', given the rationality
of their cognitive frame (van der Ploeg, 2009). However, what counts as 'authoritative
knowledge' is often as much a reflection of institutional power as it is of robust or
comprehensive understanding (Stirling, 2009). The issue of the definition of what counts as
a transition to sustainability is therefore closely related to the question of 'whose system
counts' (Stirling, 2008), which includes the definition of the boundaries of the system under
consideration as well as what its structure is and how it functions (Shove and Walker,
2007). Thus, the identification of persistent problems, the choice of criteria to assess the
relative worth of alternative pathways, and the solutions that are understood as leading to
sustainability, are all the result of social interaction, political decision-making and conflict.
Institutions: rules, values and lifestyles
Another aspect that has not stood at the centre of previous studies on transitions to
sustainability is the role of institutions. Institutions are all those 'rules of the game' such as
norms, conventions and ways of doing things that structure human interaction and activity
(North, 2005). Rules can be formal or informal, overt or implicit. Rules are expressed in