IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ieu/wpaper/65.html

Visions on high-speed trains: a methodological analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Susana Martins Moretto

    (IET/CICS.NOVA, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Portugal and University of Tongji, Shanghai, R.P. China)

  • António Brandão Moniz

    (IET/CICS.NOVA, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Portugal, and ITAS, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany)

  • Douglas Robinson

    (Teqnode, Paris, France)

Abstract

Future Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) has been visible in railway planning since 2001. Over a dozen reports have been produced in the past thirteen years, the majority being descriptive endogenous technocentric visions. They have played a role in the revitalization of the sector, predominantly relating to collective alignments and interdependencies in choice and form of the technological path the various stakeholders’ follow to achieve policy goals. A striking example is the case of ERRAC visions, where strategic agendas and roadmaps greatly impacted the high-speed train technology transition from the second to the third generation of vehicles. However, today’s socio-economic events have revealed the limitations of previously applied FTA fall short for railways. In particular, there is an inability to bridge technocentric visions with the societal challenges that are becoming increasingly prominent on the policy agenda. To fill this FTA-need in railways it is here proposed a role for constructive technology assessment as bridging function towards achieving success in the transition to a next generation of high-speed trains. The findings here presented result from the analysis of reports and interviews with their commissioning institutions and drafters.

Suggested Citation

  • Susana Martins Moretto & António Brandão Moniz & Douglas Robinson, 2015. "Visions on high-speed trains: a methodological analysis," IET Working Papers Series 05/2015, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.
    • Handle: RePEc:ieu:wpaper:65
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://run.unl.pt/handle/10362/16574
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Armstrong, John & Preston, John, 2011. "Alternative railway futures: growth and/or specialisation?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 1570-1579.
    2. Glyn Elwyn & Alex R. Hardisty & Susan C. Pierce & Carl May & Robert Evans & Douglas K. R. Robinson & Charlotte E. Bolton & Zaheer R. Yousef & Edward Clarke Conley & Omer F. Rana & W. Alex Grey & Alun , 2012. "Detecting deterioration in patients with chronic disease using telemonitoring: navigating the 'trough of disillusionment'," Post-Print hal-00794442, HAL.
    3. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    4. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    5. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 978-994, July.
    6. Douglas K. R. Robinson & Lu Huang & Yan Guo & Alan L. Porter, 2013. "Forecasting Innovation Pathways (FIP) for new and emerging science and technologies," Post-Print hal-01070417, HAL.
    7. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    8. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    9. Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    10. ., 1998. "Technological Change," Chapters, in: Heinz D. Kurz & Neri Salvadori (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Classical Economics, volume 0, chapter 127, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. D.K. Robinson & Lu Huang & Ying Guo & Alan L. Porter, 2013. "Forecasting Innovation Pathways (FIP) for new and emerging science and technologies," Post-Print hal-01071140, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robinson, Douglas K.R. & Lagnau, Axel & Boon, Wouter P.C., 2019. "Innovation pathways in additive manufacturing: Methods for tracing emerging and branching paths from rapid prototyping to alternative applications," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 733-750.
    2. Dijk, Marc & Orsato, Renato J. & Kemp, René, 2015. "Towards a regime-based typology of market evolution," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 276-289.
    3. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Battke, Benedikt & Grosspietsch, David & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Do deployment policies pick technologies by (not) picking applications?—A simulation of investment decisions in technologies with multiple applications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1965-1983.
    4. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    5. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    6. Foxon, Timothy J., 2011. "A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2258-2267.
    7. Singh, Shiwangi & Dhir, Sanjay & Das, V. Mukunda & Sharma, Anuj, 2020. "Bibliometric overview of the Technological Forecasting and Social Change journal: Analysis from 1970 to 2018," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Zolfagharian, Mohammadreza & Walrave, Bob & Raven, Rob & Romme, A. Georges L., 2019. "Studying transitions: Past, present, and future," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    9. Floortje Alkemade & Marko Hekkert, 2009. "Development paths for emerging innovation systems: implications for environmental innovations," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 09-08, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Apr 2009.
    10. Francesco Bogliacino & Mario Pianta, 2016. "The Pavitt Taxonomy, revisited: patterns of innovation in manufacturing and services," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(2), pages 153-180, August.
    11. Lai, Kuei-Kuei & Chen, Yu-Long & Kumar, Vimal & Daim, Tugrul & Verma, Pratima & Kao, Fang-Chen & Liu, Ruirong, 2023. "Mapping technological trajectories and exploring knowledge sources: A case study of E-payment technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PB).
    12. Chang, Yuan-Chieh & Chen, Min-Nan, 2016. "Service regime and innovation clusters: An empirical study from service firms in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1845-1857.
    13. Maxim Kotsemir & Alexander Abroskin & Dirk Meissner, 2013. "Innovation concepts and typology – an evolutionary discussion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    14. repec:got:cegedp:102 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Leydesdorff, Loet & Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1441-1449, December.
    16. Ramani, Shyama V. & Thutupalli, Ajay, 2015. "Emergence of controversy in technology transitions: Green Revolution and Bt cotton in India," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 198-212.
    17. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    18. Gürsan, C. & de Gooyert, V., 2021. "The systemic impact of a transition fuel: Does natural gas help or hinder the energy transition?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    19. Truffer, Bernhard & Schippl, Jens & Fleischer, Torsten, 2017. "Decentering technology in technology assessment: prospects for socio-technical transitions in electric mobility in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 34-48.
    20. McMeekin, Andrew & Geels, Frank W. & Hodson, Mike, 2019. "Mapping the winds of whole system reconfiguration: Analysing low-carbon transformations across production, distribution and consumption in the UK electricity system (1990–2016)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1216-1231.
    21. Mary Tripsas, 2008. "Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 79-97.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • R42 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Government and Private Investment Analysis; Road Maintenance; Transportation Planning

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ieu:wpaper:65. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Brandão Moniz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieunlpt.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.