IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/2014-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

From Sustainability to Transformation: Dynamics and diversity in reflexive governance of vulnerability

Author

Listed:
  • Andy Stirling

    () (SPRU, University of Sussex, UK)

Abstract

"This paper slightly amends a concluding chapter in the above book on ‘vulnerability in technological cultures’. It offers a personal view of key governance implications of this fruitful concept. Picking up earlier arguments, technological vulnerability is seen in a dual fashion – both in terms of the vulnerability of particular technological trajectories to subversion by powerful incumbent interests, as well as the vulnerability of societies and ecologies to the effects of technology. Either way (in common with other kinds of vulnerability), those interests which tend to be most adversely affected by these dynamics, are those that are already most disadvantaged. The argument begins by pointing out that governance institutions and discourses around Sustainability hold particular significance for this challenge. By contrast with prevailing (simply emergent) notions of progress, Sustainability constitutes political space and traction for more assertively publicly-deliberated normative frames. These in turn help enable greater social agency concerning the appropriate orientations for innovation pathways that pay greater respect to qualities of ecological integrity, social equity and human wellbeing. Beyond these normative dimensions, however, Sustainability also focuses attention on diverse possible dynamics of vulnerability. Distinguishing between styles of agency variously conceived as controlling or responsive, and temporal patterns perceivable as episodic shock or cumulative stress, four distinct dynamic properties are resolved (stability, durability, resilience and robustness). Each holds contrasting practical implications for governance institutions and instruments. But all address vulnerabilities in a fashion that assumes a normative interest in maintaining a given trajectory. The contrasting face of vulnerability also requires attention to an alternative normative aim: that of disrupting a given trajectory. Here, the same four dimensions of agency and temporality highlight four corresponding dynamics of disruption (transduction, transition, transilience and transformation). If governance is to escape from the powerful conditioning effects of incumbent interests, this framework may offer a basis for greater critical reflexivity over contrasting normativities and dynamics of vulnerability. So, the paper ends with a brief exploration of the implications for three interlinked aspects of diversity – involving the ‘opening up’ of ways in which technological trajectories are: epistemically understood; normatively appreciated; and ontologically performed in practice. It is argued that taking the dual faces of technological vulnerability seriously, requires attending more symmetrically to these essential conditions for more distributed and relational forms of social reflexivity. Only by this means, is it possible to escape not only the diverse ways in which incumbent concentrations of power close down technological trajectories themselves, but also the plural ways in which the general dynamics of technological vulnerability can even be imagined."

Suggested Citation

  • Andy Stirling, 2014. "From Sustainability to Transformation: Dynamics and diversity in reflexive governance of vulnerability," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-06, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
  • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:2014-06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/2014-06-swps-stirling.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Aghion & Philippe Askenazy & Nicolas Berman & Gilbert Cette & Laurent Eymard, 2012. "Credit Constraints And The Cyclicality Of R&D Investment: Evidence From France," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(5), pages 1001-1024, October.
    2. Roberto Fontana & Marco Guerzoni, 2008. "Incentives and uncertainty: an empirical analysis of the impact of demand on innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(6), pages 927-946, November.
    3. Pellegrino, Gabriele & Savona, Maria, 2013. "Is money all? Financing versus knowledge and demand constraints to innovation," MERIT Working Papers 029, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    4. Simona Iammarino & Francesca Sanna-Randaccio & Maria Savona, 2007. "The perception of obstacles to innovation. Multinational and domestic firms in Italy," Working Papers of BETA 2007-12, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    5. Pierre Blanchard & Jean-Pierre Huiban & Antonio Musolesi & Patrick Sevestre, 2013. "Where there is a will, there is a way? Assessing the impact of obstacles to innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 679-710, June.
    6. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Toole, Andrew A., 2006. "Patent protection, market uncertainty, and R&D investment," ZEW Discussion Papers 06-056, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    7. Edler, Jakob & Georghiou, Luke, 2007. "Public procurement and innovation--Resurrecting the demand side," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 949-963.
    8. Hottenrott, Hanna & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2010. "Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-105, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    9. Dirk Czarnitzki & Andrew A. Toole, 2013. "The R&D Investment–Uncertainty Relationship: Do Strategic Rivalry and Firm Size Matter?," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), pages 15-28, January.
    10. Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2007. "Is demand-pulled innovation equally important in different groups of firms?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, pages 691-710.
    11. Maria Luisa Mancusi & Andrea Vezzulli, 2010. "R&D, Innovation and Liquidity Constraints," KITeS Working Papers 030, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised May 2010.
    12. Faïz Gallouj & Maria Savona, 2009. "Innovation in services: a review of the debate and a research agenda," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, pages 149-172.
    13. Fier, Andreas & Aschhoff, Birgit & Löhlein, Heide, 2006. "Detecting Behavioural Additionality: An Empirical Study on the Impact of Public R&D Funding on Firms' Cooperative Behaviour in Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 06-037, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    14. Galia, Fabrice & Legros, Diego, 2004. "Complementarities between obstacles to innovation: evidence from France," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 1185-1199.
    15. Alessandra Canepa & Paul Stoneman, 2008. "Financial constraints to innovation in the UK: evidence from CIS2 and CIS3," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 60(4), pages 711-730, October.
    16. Hottenrott, Hanna & Peters, Bettina, 2009. "Innovative capability and financing constraints for innovation: More money, more innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-081, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    17. Paloma López-García & José Manuel Montero & Enrique Moral-Benito, 2013. "Business Cycles and Investment in Productivity-Enhancing Activities: Evidence from Spanish Firms," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 611-636.
    18. Frederique Savignac, 2008. "Impact Of Financial Constraints On Innovation: What Can Be Learned From A Direct Measure?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 553-569.
    19. Dirk Czarnitzki & Andrew A. Toole, 2011. "Patent Protection, Market Uncertainty, and R&D Investment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, pages 147-159.
    20. Hackl, Franz & Kummer, Michael E. & Winter-Ebmer, Rudolf & Zulehner, Christine, 2014. "Market structure and market performance in E-commerce," European Economic Review, Elsevier, pages 199-218.
    21. Hanna Hottenrott & Bettina Peters, 2012. "Innovative Capability and Financing Constraints for Innovation: More Money, More Innovation?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, pages 1126-1142.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patricia Romero-Lankao & Daniel M. Gnatz & Olga Wilhelmi & Mary Hayden, 2016. "Urban Sustainability and Resilience: From Theory to Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Johansson, Bengt & Jonsson, Daniel K. & Veibäck, Ester & Sonnsjö, Hannes, 2016. "Assessing the capabilites to manage risks in energy systems–analytical perspectives and frameworks with a starting point in Swedish experiences," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 429-435.
    3. Månsson, André & Johansson, Bengt & Nilsson, Lars J., 2014. "Assessing energy security: An overview of commonly used methodologies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-14.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sru:ssewps:2014-06. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Russell Eke). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.