{"title":"Assessing regime destabilisation through policy change: An analysis of agricultural policy in the United Kingdom during Brexit","authors":"Leonard Frank , Giuseppe Feola , Niko Schäpke","doi":"10.1016/j.eist.2024.100810","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In sustainability transitions research, the deliberate destabilisation of socio-technical regimes is increasingly recognised as a central intervention point. Absent, however, are granular approaches for assessing whether regime destabilisation actually occurs in processes of systemic change. We propose to assess regime destabilisation through shifts in the institutionalisation of field logics. Methodologically, we employ Socio-Technical Configuration Analysis to map changes over time in the composition and alignment of institutional and technological concepts embedded in sectoral policy.</p><p>Empirically, we assess the extent to which post-Brexit agricultural policy reform in the United Kingdom marks the destabilisation of an unsustainable regime. Assessing legislative debate transcripts, we find that the previously dominant regime is only partly destabilised, as pre-existing development trajectories along established configurations of field logics, policy goals and instruments remain. These findings support the validity of our conceptual approach. Moreover, they nuance expectations about large-scale policy change as windows of opportunity for regime shifts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54294,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422424000017","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In sustainability transitions research, the deliberate destabilisation of socio-technical regimes is increasingly recognised as a central intervention point. Absent, however, are granular approaches for assessing whether regime destabilisation actually occurs in processes of systemic change. We propose to assess regime destabilisation through shifts in the institutionalisation of field logics. Methodologically, we employ Socio-Technical Configuration Analysis to map changes over time in the composition and alignment of institutional and technological concepts embedded in sectoral policy.
Empirically, we assess the extent to which post-Brexit agricultural policy reform in the United Kingdom marks the destabilisation of an unsustainable regime. Assessing legislative debate transcripts, we find that the previously dominant regime is only partly destabilised, as pre-existing development trajectories along established configurations of field logics, policy goals and instruments remain. These findings support the validity of our conceptual approach. Moreover, they nuance expectations about large-scale policy change as windows of opportunity for regime shifts.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions serves as a platform for reporting studies on innovations and socio-economic transitions aimed at fostering an environmentally sustainable economy, thereby addressing structural resource scarcity and environmental challenges, particularly those associated with fossil energy use and climate change. The journal focuses on various forms of innovation, including technological, organizational, economic, institutional, and political, as well as economy-wide and sectoral changes in areas such as energy, transport, agriculture, and water management. It endeavors to tackle complex questions concerning social, economic, behavioral-psychological, and political barriers and opportunities, along with their intricate interactions. With a multidisciplinary approach and methodological openness, the journal welcomes contributions from a wide array of disciplines within the social, environmental, and innovation sciences.