Case Studies on Redefining Transition Management

Description
Transition management, in the financial sense, is a service usually offered by sell side institutions to help buy side firms transition a portfolio of securities. Various events including acquisitions and management changes can cause the need for a portfolio to be transitioned.

Case Studies on Redefining Transition Management

ABSTRACT In this paper, we analyze praxis/ theory entanglements in contemporary discourse on

transition

management, as exemplified by the Netherlands. We argue that modernist notions of steering pervade

the governance system, overestimating the role of governmental actors and underestimating other

sources of innovation and systemic innovation that could be labeled 'transition'. We argue that in this

policy environment, transitions management theories emerged and were embraced that reinforced

framework, partly deriving from the social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann, to grasp the paradoxes of

flawed notions of social engineering, both in science and in governance. We develop a theoretical

current notions of transition management, and to outline an alternative approach. A renewed reflection

on innovation we deem essential for an understanding of the potential for transition management, for

delineating the limits and possibilities of steering in such endeavor. Innovation, it is argued, has to be

understood as a post- hoc interpretation of previous decisions and actions, emerging in shifting networks

of actors and allies. It is a risky and unpredictable operation at the intersection of incompatible

conditions for reflection, including the reflection on the redistribution of risks engendered by

understandings of the world. Transition management, then, has to be understood as the creation of

innovation..

Keywords: transition management, innovation, social systems theory, Dutch policy

INTRODUCTION

Since the late nineties notions of innovation, systems

economic practices and organizational forms on a more sustainable track. Redirecting the main stream

innovation and transition management are abundant indicated as transition management (Andriani, 2009; of

socio economic development in society was

and movement from one societal state to another -

in public discourse. The Netherlands are a case in point. Here a focus on transition - a desired change

Klerkx, 2008; Martens and Rotmans, 2002; Rotmans,

Duurzame, 2003; Wilson, 2007).

2006;

emerged in the discourse on sustainable development.

Stichting

InnovatieNetwerk

Transitie

As consumer behaviour and long term ideas on

sustainability were considered out of balance,

This article seeks to assess the current discourse on

deliberately 'innovate' and shift technologies,

paradox in the management of transition and transition

government wanted to push societal actors to

management by focusing on a central

1

by 'newness', by unpredictability and uncertainty

innovation. Innovation is by definition characterized

Dutch case and reflect on the utility of the theoretical

which makes it very hard to plan or steer it. Yet,

frame.
TRANSITION MANAGEMENT IN THE NETHERLANDS

governments and managers today are striving to steer or plan 'innovation' and 'transition' in pursuit of

specific goals, like those of sustainability. In analysing the paradoxes involved in such a deliberate

sustainability governments today are looking for new

To meet the challenges of environmental

forms of governance and policy approaches and that

sociological systems theory developed by Niklas

management of transition, we will partly rely on the

Luhmann (1927-1998). This body of work allows us,

countries like the UK) government-sponsored

sustainable direction. In the Netherlands (and other can

help to shift economies and technologies in a

which the management of transitions has to take

not only to outline the broader societal structure in

programmes have explicitly adopted methods of 'transition management', an approach rooted in

place, but also to delineate the steering possibilities

stimulating innovation for particular goals such as

and limits of governmental organizations in

tradition of systems thinking and 'multilevel' models of innovation (Kemp and Loorbach, 2006; Rip and

sustainability. In this way, both the critical and

Kemp, 1998). Transition management seeks to address complex, long-term problems in fields like

be demonstrated.

constructive

potential of

systems theory can

can induce social and technological innovations

energy, mobility, health which require policies that

capable of replacing established ways of doing things,

transition and innovation on a prominent place on the

government and its public administrations have put We

2009). as

focus on the Dutch case, because here the

well as

their

structural

embedding

(Voß et al.,

to sustainability issues like energy use and food

economic and scientific agenda, especially with regard

Since the 'transition management' approach has been

quality. Transition management theory, and its

instituted by the Dutch government in 2001, it has

adoption in the Netherlands, has also attracted

quickly gained ground. During the last decade, both

considerable interest amongst those studying

environmental governance (e.g. Van Assche et al.,

the Dutch mass media and policy- related documents

environmental innovation, or a supposed lack thereof.

at

times

reflected

a

preoccupation

with

2012; Kern and Howlett, 2009; Shove and Walker, 2007; Smith and Kern, 2009; Voß et al., 2009).

A national forum convened for a few years

In the following section, we first present some background information and key concepts about

(innovatieplatform), and research promising to enhance innovation in fields like energy, mobility,

transition management in the Dutch context. Then we briefly introduce Luhmanns system theory and 2009). Several governmental organizations were waste

recycling was prioritized (Duineveld et al.,

provide a more detailed analysis of his views on innovation and transition. In the second section of the

governmental

retooled to stimulate innovation. The traditional

implementation of new technical means changed in a

information

service

on

the

and innovation in more detail. What is remarkable

paper we analyse the Dutch discourse on transition the level of individual entrepreneurs. Innovation herd of

facility managers lecturing on innovation at

about this discourse, is the often-non-reflexive, latent

believe in the possibility of steering transitions or

became the buzzword and the norm. Underlying assumptions were usually that the Dutch

sociological systems theoretical perspective, we will

social engineering (Shove and Walker, 2007). Using a

economy was not capable of meeting the

reflect on the role of government in stimulating

requirements of sustainability, and therefore not

e nvironmental innovation and on its inherent limitations. In concluding sections, we assess the

2 to changing environments (Peet, 2009). It innovative u

enough. Entrepreneurs were considered n

-

a

d

a

p

t

i

v

e

was also presumed that innovation can be measured, that it can be managed and that rules can be identified
LUHMANN'S SYSTEMS THEORY Luhmann has been

described as one of the greatest

to stimulate innovation (Ogink et al., 2004; Potters et al., 2007; Potters et al., 2009). Furthermore, various

social scientists of the 20th century, but many of his

their role in this urgent process of updating society

branches and levels of government have to assume

concepts have been remarkably unexplored and left

without much application. One of the fields where his insights did gain influence is organization and

and should become more susceptible to 'systemic

change' (Duineveld et al., 2009; Kemp et al., 2007b;

management theory, and the following analysis of

Van Assche, 2004, 2006). conducted in that particular field of application e.g.

innovation and transition is indebted to the work

rooted in a long tradition of state planning and a

The Dutch transition management discourse is firmly

(Van Assche & Verschraegen, 2008; Fuchs, 2001; Hernes and Bakken, 2002; Seidl and Becker, 2005;

strong believe in consensus building. Ideas of 'social

Teubner, 1996), allowing for a smoother move from grand theory to analyses of practice. Luhmann

engineering' have been omnipresent within Dutch

understands society as a collection of interacting

governments and governance studies since the sixties

and seventies of the last century (Baas, 1995; Frissen,

1999; Frissen, 2007, Fischer, 1990, 2000; Scott, 1998). communication, based on specific distinctions and

social systems, each creating its own reality through

(Kemp et al., 2007b) have adapted this tradition to an

Although proponents of transition management

transition.

age of 'governance' (instead of government) and

specific modes of reproduction. This has far- reaching implications for the analysis of innovation and

'complexity' (instead of linearity, simplicity) they

agency' and 'deliberate intervention' (Shove and

remain firmly committed to models of 'political

Traditionally, the notion of system often gets associated with the idea of a holistic structure that

Walker, 2007).

defines and controls all constituent phenomena, with

These different presumptions are reflected in the

the different parts or subsystems in subordination to the broader structure of the encompassing system. In

literature on systems innovation and transition

the social sciences as well, one often interprets

management which has developed since the late 90s. Often sponsored by governmental and semi-

systems theory as implying a Weberian, top-down

reason on individual actors (Nassehi, 2005): 180).

hierarchy of control and an enforcement of a general

literature aims to circumscribe the concepts more

governmental organizations, this line of research and

This notion of a system is inherent in transition and

precisely, to define parameters and generate Control is organized in what are called socio-

transition management theory (Poppe et al., 2009).

procedures for optimizations (Poppe et al., 2009;

Rotmans, 2000 ; Rotmans, 2003)). Our analysis aims

to identify and reflect on the frame of assumptions strategic niche management to locate opportunities

economic regimes and innovations require so called

that is at work in this discourse. Although there has systems, however, has nothing to with Luhmann's with

less control (Bos, 2010). This understanding of

been a lot of interest in the transition management

to have largely eluded critical scrutiny (important

literature over the last ten years, the discourse seems

theory of social systems, which basically rejects the

exceptions are Shove and Walker, 2007 and Smith and

by a higher level of order. Instead, systems build up

themselves through hierarchical relations and control

idea that systems come into being and stabilize

Stirling, 2010).

their own structures or 'organized complexity' through their own operations; in this sense systems

3

cannot be controlled by a bigger whole or higher level, but only by themselves.

relation between a system and its environment is systems: interactions, organizations and function

Luhmann distinguishes three types of social

systems. Interactions are conversations, implying the

asymmetric.

lived systems, fleeting, and limited in their processing

perceived physical presence of interlocutors, short

Changes in the environment do not cause linear

of environmental complexity (Luhmann, 1995). are produced within the system itself. On the one

effects inside of a system, but only 'irritations', which

Organizations reproduce themselves through a

specific form of communications, namely decisions,

hand, this means that a system is flexible in reducing

implying the awareness and communication of

'reality' to its own systemic version - which is

decisions (Seidl, 2005). Function systems are the

alternatives, and continuously referring to previous

precisely what enhances the system's ability to

develop a special kind of complexity. On the other

systems of communication that fulfill a function in

hand, it makes external, purposeful steering of the system an unlikely and difficult event. There can be no

science and education each play a role in the

society at large. Law, economy, politics, religion,

direct, purposeful steering, political, legal or

reproduction of society as the encompassing social

otherwise, because direct interference of the

system, each reproducing itself through distinct the dissolution of the system in the environment

environment would halt the autopoiesis, and lead to

codes, each maintaining a boundary vis-à-vis the

(Luhmann, 1989, 1990, 1995).

interdependencies between the functions systems

other function systems. While the pattern of

reveals a history of mutual adaptation (Van Assche et

al., 2010). Politics is considered the system that

Luhmann on transition and system innovation What would constitute an innovation in a social

articulates and enforces collectively binding decisions,

but relies on law in their codification and enforcement

systems perspective? What would be a system innovation and is it possible to steer or manage this?

(Luhmann, 1990).

For Luhmann, systems have to innovate to survive.

Society for Luhmann is polycentric, in the sense that

communications and continuously reinterpreting

each function system internally produces an image of society, of the other systems in its environment. recursive communication, linking back to previous

Social systems reproduce themselves through

them. For organizations, each decision reinterprets

elevated position that allows for a comprehensive

Politics is not a site with a superior viewpoint, an

the history of previous decisions, slowly changing the

view and understanding of society (King and Tornhill,

interpretive frames to understand that history, and with that, the image of the organization that guides

2003 ), and certainly not a central position from

further decision- making (Hernes and Bakken, 2002; Luhmann, 2000). In autopoietic systems, literally

which the other systems can be steered

(distinguishing his theory from the high modernism of

everything will change over time, structures, elements

Scott, 1998.) The behavior of function systems and

organizations is necessarily opaque and unpredictable time. So, Luhmann's evolutionary theory places a and

procedures gradually transform each other in due

for politics, since it can never entirely grasp their

premium on innovation, as something that is radical,

Luhmann calls their operational closure or

mode of reproduction, the specificity of what that continuous change will not always be perceived and

necessary for survival (Van Assche, 2006). Yet,

autopoesis, a form of reproduction entirely relying on cannot force innovation, because systems respond to as

innovation within the system. And the environment

does not mean that such systems are not able to

what is available in the system itself. Closure here

the environment only to the extent that

experience contact with their environments but that reconstructed in the system's code or logic

environmental

impulses

can

be

internally

4 From a systems perspective, the distinction between operations. Due to this operational closure, the the only (mere) change and (genuine) innovation is a matter of

mode to get in contact is based on their own

observation. Change takes places continuously, in adaptation to external and internal environments.

marvelously implemented plan, then the rhetoric of

radical change, rapid change, successful change, but

Innovation could be seen as important change, or

innovation can still claim that success a posteriori, as

the result of conscious decision- making, of a drive for innovation (Allina - Pisano, 2008; Beunen et al., 2009;

all these labels have little theoretical relevance. A

distinction system theory can make is one between

Collins, 2006; Ledeneva, 2005). Lack of innovation can be observed only by a collapse of autopoiesis, in the

reflexive and non-reflexive change. To understand this, one needs to realize that only mode of operating

case of a company, a bankruptcy.

for social systems is communication, or rather the connectivity of communicative events in time. The

Rhetoric is the art of saying things well, and the art of being persuasive. Such implies immediately an

communication, and only communication, in which

autopoiesis of social systems is based on people can be construed as producing a shift in their

environment that can be persuaded. Persuading

each new communication connects to simultaneously

communication. Innovation, in this view, can only be

defines

(or

'understands')

the

previous

semantics, in the meaning they attribute to something.

an ex-post account, a retrospective scheme of

environment that has to be persuaded, that has to

The rhetoric of innovation similarly implies an

incorporate a perception of successful and purposeful

new or transformative. According to Luhmann, social

observation in which an event is defined as something

change in their semantics (Fuchs, 2001). Recent theoretical models of innovation often stress that the

systems are capable of self- reflection by

communication, and on its position vis-à-vis various

communicating

on

their

own

systemic on the expectations and interests of the different

recognition and success of innovations is dependent

environments (Luhmann, 1989, 2004). But they never

have a full understanding of their own autopoiesis,

actors directly or indirectly involved in developing an innovation (developers, legislators, politicians, end

since it is necessarily observed from within, that is, with all the blind spots of first- order observation

users, etc). Innovation is an emergent, interactive

activity, involving many actors who cooperate or oppose one another. The art of innovation is exactly to

taking place in the system, and many of those changes

(During et al., 2009; Seidl, 2005). Social systems,

therefore, will not be able to reflect on all changes

interest an increasing number of allies (users, intermediaries, etc.) who can make the invention

are unconscious adaptations. Reflexive changes are

stronger (Akrich et al., 2002a, b; Latour, 1987, 2004).

changes that enter the self- reflection of the system, as

In last instance, the fate of the innovation depends on

conscious responses to observations of the

environment. If a reflexive change is deemed

the active participation of a network of other actors. This dependence on the perception and cooperation

successful, it can be labeled as an innovation in

of other actors reduces even further the degree of

changing environment might be inspired by fear, and

hindsight (Seidl and Becker, 2005). A response to a

control an organization has over innovation. "Since the outcome of a project depends on the alliances

marked by erratic analyses of skills, demands,

which it allows for and interests which it mobilizes, no criteria, no algorithm, can ensure success a priori"

resources, but if it works, it might become an

innovation. And, as said, the chain of reinterpretations

(Akrich et al., 2002a).

of success and failure, of innovation and non-

adaptation never stops (Brunsson, 2002; Jansson,

1989; Morgan, 1986; Van Assche, 2004).

Innovation cannot simply be 'decided', but is rather the outcome of a contingent process of

This has clear advances: if an organization changed, communication

processes

communication

and

coupling that

with is post-hoc

other

largely unaware of those changes, and the result is

5 rationalized as something new and valuable. This is in the elections, a growing market share, a perceived

decision, and hence, of organizations. Organizations, as very positive, e.g. an unexpected success

what Luhmann calls the paradoxical nature of

proceed, yet have no secure knowledge about what to

which consist of decisions, have to decide on how to

hospitals or firms, have played a crucial role in this

decide (otherwise it would not be a choice). If function systems, precisely in their different manner

process because they are able to couple different

organizations would be fully aware of the nothingness

upholding them, autopoiesis would stop, so a series of

of operation, as they form decisions using the codes of the respective function systems (Andersen, 2005;

strategies evolved to hide the paradox for themselves.

Luhmann, 1997). Firms, for instance, even if their goal

1996; Van Assche, 2006).

eliminated or solved, but it can be shifted out of sight

Luhmann speaks of de- paradoxification (Teubner, Paradox cannot be well, by using scientific research, dealing with legal is

economic, are coupled to other function systems as

(Schiltz, 2007). Causalities are constructed: 'we have Bakken, 2002).

claims, developing

political pressure,

etc. (Hernes and

guide us through this'. Organizations construct

to do this'; leadership qualities are mystified: 'he will

If there is one system innovation, it would be the emergence of modern, differentiated, society, in other

environments and events in such a way that they

Weick, 1995). In this rhetoric of de- paradoxification,

seem to cause, or prompt, a certain decision (Czarniawska, 1997; Hernes and Bakken, 2002;

words the operational closure of the function systems

in the 18th century (Luhmann, 1995). Following the same line of reasoning, one could also argue that

environment are constructed as inviting, enabling or

certain features of the external or internal

system innovation springs from the sustained

requiring innovation (During et al., 2009). Strategic on rigidity and flexibility, thereby increasing the

reflection on path-dependence and interdependence,

management of organizations, including innovation

Innovation can take place at the level of

management, cannot be but self- referential.

options available, the insight in the linkage of various

system innovation (Luhmann, 2002). Innovation in

possible changes, and consequently, the potential for

communications, procedures, and structures, but

changes in one feature of the system are enabled by

this view derives precisely from working on the

changes in the others, and will trigger new it springs from the clash of contending principles of

contact borders between incompatible system codes;

adaptations there. Changes in self- image, images of

the environment, in decision- procedures, in

evaluation and the attempt to translate events,

hierarchy, all interrelate, whether one is aware of this

objects, etc in the code of another system. In their

innovation is a system innovation; it is just that some

or not (King and Tornhill, 2003 ). In that sense, every

seminal study on new-product development (Lester

changes are labeled systemic, others not. One can

and Piore, 2004), show that examples of radical

innovation involve combinations across disparate fields: new medical devices, for instance, draw on the

refer to the American automobile industry, with its

successive waves of reform presented by successive

basic life sciences as well as clinical practice; blue jeans combine traditional workmen's clothing and

managers as more systemic and more innovative than

the previous ones.

laundry technology borrowed from hospitals and hotels and cellular phones reconfigure elements from

FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENTIATION AS A SOCIOLOGICAL

radio and telephone technologies (Lester and Piore, 2004). It is exactly the friction between multiple systemic frames which challenges the taken-for-

PREREQUISITE FOR INNOVATION

The history of differentiation produced operationally closed, but highly interdependent function systems. creatively recombined (Stark, 2009). By smartly

granted and takes knowledge apart so it can be

achieve their specialized communications because of

Law, politics, education, science, economics could only

utilizing - instead of denying - differences between function systems, innovative organizations can

the parallel development of the others (King and

repackage other systemic logics, making it possible to

6 Tornhill, 2003). Organizations such as universities, organizational environment (for an application in the

adapt to the ever changing topography of their

field of planning, see Van Assche & Verschraegen,

2008: 270-278)
MANAGING 'SYSTEMS INNOVATION' AND TRANSITIONS:

build them (Allina - Pisano, 2008; Ledeneva, 2005;

capitalist democracies and simple interventions to

Verdery, 2003). The same example reveals that the

THE DUTCH POLICY DISCOURSE System innovation in the

in many ways: groups stress different aspects of the

Dutch policy context is often

rhetoric of transition can be internally appropriated

final situation, and the same applies to the starting

used in distinction with innovation. A system

point and the path. Some work towards a final goal

supposedly not confined to something small. To what?

innovation could lead to a transition, and is various purposes, criminal or otherwise (Collins, with

conviction, others just adopt the rhetoric for

Different options arise here: to one company, to one

2006).

sector, to the government, to the business sphere, to

academia. This leaves 'innovation' as 'something new,

Within Dutch transition management studies

and something good', 'system innovation' as 'a more

transition is however conceived of as a formalized and

boundaries', and 'transition' as 'the move of a larger

comprehensive

innovation,

bridging

some phases, each characterised by their own dynamics and

manageable process. Transition consist of different

whole by means of system innovation to a higher state

which are determined by system changes at different scale levels (Loorbach, 2007). Transitions are

of functioning'. and organisations, such as ordinary citizens,

represented as processes involving several people

What could be a transition? As explained earlier,

transitions can only be identified as such post hoc. A

transition in the making consists of a multiplicity of "Influence on society is not only social, cultural,

governments, businesses and social organisations:

heterogeneous and often confused decisions made by

institutional or political, but also economic, ecological and technological. Social actors are reflexive and as

a large number of different and often conflicting

groups, decisions which one is unable to decide a

such shape and influence the dynamics of the system

priori as to whether or not they bring the desired end

goal closer (Akrich et al., 2002a, b; Elster et al., 1998).

they inhabit" (Avelino and Rotmans, 2009). It is believed within the Dutch transition discourse that

Saying that transition can only be identified

retrospectively means implicitly highlighting the

research on long-term societal changes can provide

tools that help guide society towards innovation, system innovation for a mere sustainable society

There is not pre-given path to follow. Post-communist

existence of a plurality of possible transition paths.

(Loorbach, 2007). Transition studies carry and constantly reproduce the promise of contributing to

countries, for instance, werefor a long time grouped

together as 'transitional' countries: they were all

the solutions to socio-political and environmental

supposed to be similar - moving from one societal transportation, education, healthcare and so on. These

problems

in

agriculture,

water-management,

state to another and supposed to end up similar. In

practice, the specific autopoiesis of each state

organization, their specific internal and external that have been around for decades for which there are

problems are represented as "persistent problems

environments, their informal institutions, produced persistent because they are deeply rooted in our no cut

and dried solutions (?). These problems are

very different effects, which also produced different

social structures and institutions (?)" (Rotmans et al.,

images of routes, plans and final situations (Elster et

'transition' also showed that many western

al., 1998; Van Assche et al., 2010). Post- communist transition researchers produce recommendations and

2005). In order to solve these 'persistent problems',

consultants were operating under false assumptions,

products of their organizational cultures and business Within transition studies it is thought that transition

policy-measures in order to manage a transition.

7 models, assumptions on ready- made models for management is able to offer a conceptual framework that enables one to come up with a specific mix of

that management at system level is essential,

ways to steer things in the right direction. It is stated,

)funded by governments it should hold the promise of

newcomers should create a new regime, a pluralistic

the possibility to produce recommendations for

approach is desirable and it is ought to be important and research institutes to explicitly present effective

policies. This forces scientists, chair groups

for the actors involved within transitions to get to

know each other's perceptions of reality. More specific are the recommendations for setting up a

themselves as producers of strategic research and

knowledge (Ark, 2005; Hoppe, 2002; Loos et al., 2007; Spaapen et al., 2007 ).

and a transition agenda. One of the key outcomes of

transition arena and developing transition coalitions

transition research is that 'cooperation' is needed, and concepts and assumptions in the Dutch transition In the

following sections, we will further analyse key

and 'trans-disciplinary' (bridging disciplinary,

that knowledge needed to be more 'interdisciplinary'

discourse, and dissect them by means of a social

conceptual,

systems perspective on innovation and transition.

and Grin, 2007b; Kemp et al., 2007b). In many

innovations crossing those boundaries) (Hendriks
LUHMANN'S CRITIQUE OF GOVERNMENT 'MANAGING'

academic

boundaries,

enabling

research and policy projects, these assumptions can

Transition management theory is for a large part

SOCIETY / SOCIAL ENGINEERING

et al., 2007a, Grin, 2007a).

Hendriks and easily be

identified (Kemp

constituted within the tradition of Dutch governance (Shove and Walker, 2007). Its proponents generally

but often non-reflexive belief in the possibility of

Typical for the Dutch transition discourse is a firm,

agree that government policy has a key role to play in

the promotion of 'system innovation' and believe that strong policy instruments and procedures are needed

steering transitions or social engineering (Shove and

to insure that such transformations occur (Kern and

Walker, 2007). Transitions are represented as a set of

factors or conditions that, if they all work together,

Howlett, 2009). The following quote may serve as an

of more or less mechanical, instrumental processes.

will cause a desired change - as if they are the result

example:

Though transition experts state that it is a management is the modulation of ongoing societal The

steering

philosophy

behind

transition

the theory will lead to a deterministic collection of

misconception to presume that the implementation of

developments and innovations at different levels

directing rules (Rotmans et al., 2005), it did not keep

government as part of societal networks is that of

against a set of collective chosen goals. The role of the

methods and techniques that are presumed to have

transition studies from producing a large body of

work full of concrete recommendations, guidelines,

facilitator and mediator as well as director and decision-maker, depending on the different stages of

real effects, and which can be used to attain certain cooperative context-steering oriented to producing the

transition. The structuring form is centralised,

objectives and solve certain problems (Avelino and

Howlett, 2009; Loorbach, 2009; Pahl-Wostl, 2006;

Rotmans, 2009; Hendriks and Grin, 2007b; Kern and

controlled structural change (?) in which there is a co-evolution between modification of structures and

Rotmans and Kemp, 2008).

modification of the self-understanding of actors.

The transition management discourse thus fits within government "is seen as a facilitator-stimulator- Within

this transition management discourse the

the increasing fashionability of applied scientific

controller-director, depending on the phase of the

research (Gibbons, 1994 ). Social and political

scientific relevance (Tress and Tress, 2003). Since 8 relevance are considered to be just as important as 2009).

much of the present-day policy research is (cotransition

actually

underway"

(Kern and

Howlett,

Luhmann is critical about projects of social engineering. He criticized in various works, among take over law, economics, education, those systems Van

Assche & Duineveld, 2013). When politics tries to

1990), the attempts of the state to work towards the

which Political Theory in the welfare state (Luhmann, the capacity to autopoietically reproduce. After a will

gradually lose their operational closure, will lose

ideal society, based on the assumption that the

while, this will lead to a breakdown of the systemic

political system, in conjunction with the bureaucracy,

social systems in society, their problems interactions.

would be able to have an overview of society, of all the means a loss of observational capacity for society as a

logic (King and Tornhill, 2003 ), and this in turn

One can link this lack of observational capacity in the

whole: precisely the multitude of different observations in various function-systems, allows

political system to a similar lack within every organization. The more radical the intervention Assche, 2006, 2010). For example, it is precisely

society to adapt to ever changing environments (Van

system (Luhmann, 1989), and the higher the pressure

attempted, the more unpredictability introduced, the higher the risk for both intervening and subjected through differentiated, system-specific lenses because

society can observes ecological problems

for the intervening, the 'managing' system, to keep

(economic carbon trading schemes, legal emission

itself with regulatory tasks (Luhmann, 1990, 2000;

managing, to expand its operations, to overburden

rights, education programmes on global warming,

Van Assche and Leinfelder, 2008; Van Assche and solutions can be found among all subsystems scientific

research, etc.) that various, reflexive

Verschraegen, 2008).

concurrently and that the likelihood of possibly fruitful recombinations (f.i. trading carbon rights) is

For Luhmann, welfare states, overstepping the

increased. Breaking down the differences between system codes,

boundaries of politics and overestimating their differentiation (1989, 1995, 2000) - is obviously not -

what Luhmann terms de-

create their own disappointments (Luhmann, 1989,

steering power and their quest for social engeneering,

able to address the ecological question at the same

2000; Van Assche, 2006; Willke, 1994). Failed policy

level of complexity.

will result in calls for new policies, new attempts to

intervene in the other systems (Beunen et al., 2009).

In the Dutch transition management discourse the

FUNCTIONAL EMBEDDINGS AND STEERING TRANSITIONS

This will increase the tasks of the observing system,

procedures required, and it will increase the

will increase the complexity of the observations and

government is regarded to be one of many but still an important actor involved in the transition process. It

difficulties of managing its own internal complexity

is recognized that top down policy implementation by the government has "decreased, leading to

proliferation of bureaucracy, simultaneously a

(Hernes and Bakken, 2002). Typically, this implies a

increasingly diffuse policymaking structures and

slowing down in the processing of environmental

processes stratified across subnational, national, and supranational levels of government" (Loorbach,

between observation and policy response, a more

information, and, consequently, a widening gap

2009). Transitions are considered to take place in

outspoken blindness for the other systems (Luhmann,

governance processes that "have been developed in

1989, 1990).

various sectors and regions over the past 10 years. These are designed to create space for short-term

In states committed to social and long-term planning

innovation and develop long-term sustainability visions linked to desired societal transitions. These

(and certainly in communist regimes) the degree of

processes are producing broad innovation networks,

functional differentiation decreases because of

recurring interventions by the political system,

including business, government, science, and civil

9 society" (Loorbach, 2009). center of society (Elster et al., 1998; Sievers, 2002;

because of a semantics in politics placing itself in the

constituted and take place in networks which consists
TRANSITION MANAGEMENT AND SCIENCE

A transition process is thus considered to be

of governmental and non govermental organisations

To understand Luhmann on the role of science in

embedded in different function systems (Kern and

relation to transitions and other extra academic

Howlett, 2009).

effects we need to understand his conceptualization of

the risk society. Luhmann (2002: 218) claims that 'we have developed a society that has no choice but to run

For Luhmann engineering a transition is all the more

difficult, because of this embedding of organizations collection of systems that cannot adequately predict

risks'. Differentiation makes society dependent on a

in various function systems (Hernes and Bakken,

2002). Whereas politics cannot steer the other

each other's behavior, a risky operation. Society has a permanent and insatiable greed for more "irritation"

unpredictability and less differentiation, the steering

function systems without introducing more

by the environment. The internal processing of these

problem is compounded by the complex relationships

information produces a horizon of ever-new uncertainties which, in turn, will effect ever-new

between organizations and function systems (Seidl

irritations. Mass media, Luhmann reasons, keeps

and Becker, 2005). Organizations, different from

function systems, can receive the ascription 'actor',

society hyperalert by striving for newness. One

2002). Thus, communication between governmental

can be addressed in communication (Luhmann,

response according to Luhmann is a growing dependence in the autopoiesis of society on second

organizations and other actors is possible, whereas

order observation, the observation of observations.

communication between function systems is not second order observation, including but not restricted

One of the more pleasant consequences of relying of

for direct steering of organizations by their

(Luhmann, 1995). This would seem to open the door

governmental peers. However, the requirement of

management. Since innovation and by extension

to scientific analysis, is that risk can be made visible more accurately, enabling more precise risk

operational closure still stands, and

transition imply increased risk, since much of the unpredictability of organizational response is the

increased by the unpredictable influences of law,

behaviour of the organization is yet untested, risk

economy, education.

management becomes a more central concern for the

organizations involved, cf. (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982).

A consultancy firm can be pushed towards innovation

by governmental policies, but cannot afford to ignore

the financial bottom line, and also participates in the science, a strategy that brings its own risks. Scientific

This in turn opens the doors for a stronger reliance on

systems of science and education, opening up the

organization for the autopoietic requirements of those

systems (Jansson, 1989; Simon, 2002; Van Assche,

observation, grounded in the distinction true/ false, and conditioning truth on the application of scientific

routinely emerge from conflicting requirements of

2004). Indeed, tensions within organizations will

method and theory, can analyze risky and innovative

different function systems, say science and economy

decision making in other systems, in second order observation, but it brings its own blind spots, and,

for the consultancy (Seidl and Becker, 2005), but a

being a social system itself, it cannot fully grasp the

push towards innovation, that is, a push towards systemic change in the organization, will likely change

complexity of economic, political, legal decision-

making. Political pressure on science to find the logic of innovation, borne out of a desire for economic

and shift the responses to future directives

its functional embeddings, aggravate those tensions,

development, a logic that cannot be discovered

(Duineveld et al., 2009).

following the logic of science itself, can lead to recipes

10 received the stamp of science (Duineveld et al., 2007; for

innovation and transition that misleadingly

Duineveld et al., 2009; Latour, 1987, 2004; Van

Assche, 2004, 2006). If factored into the risk

and transition management sheds a different light on the limits of governmental steering in facilitating,

management of organizations, these become recipes

for disaster (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982; Luhmann, 1989, 2002).

managing or sparking off transitions, but such does

not entail that governmental inaction is a superior strategy. After briefly reviewing Luhmann's position,

Governmental incentives for innovation and

transition can further be recuperated by the other

we will suggest an alternative, not wholly contradictory, strategy

labeling of existing knowledge, products and

actors for other reasons. Subsidies can lead to rethe practice and the semantics of innovation are From

the point of view of sociological systems theory

procedures as new, to unfair competition, in business,

science and education (Duineveld et al., 2007; Latour,

specific to each system, as are the pathways available. Path dependencies are manifold, and specific for

2004; Van Assche, 2006). What might stand a better

chance than trying to grasp the reproduction of all

different organizations, different function systems

independent formulas for innovation, is what Willke

other systems, and trying to invent context-

(Van Assche et al., 2010). A scientific innovation is not

an economic innovation is not a legal innovation, and at any given point in time, the possibilities for those

(Willke, 1994) calls context-guidance. Creating better

all likelihood has to entail redistribution of risk, in

conditions for innovation, and systemic innovation, in history of autopoiesis. The same applies to function-

systems to evolve are constrained by their

other words, enabling innovation by communal

organizations as social systems. The difference between function- systems and organizations

also this strategy has limits, was sufficiently

absorption of risks taken by innovative actors. That

precludes the possibility of any function system

illustrated by the recent crisis of innovative banking.
CONCLUSIONS: LUHMANN: LIMITS AND POSSIBILITIES OF

understanding the process of innovation in any

utilize rhetoric of innovation to impress government,

organization fully. Organizations, like companies, can
STEERING TRANSITIONS

Governments have very limited means of assessing

to sell, to provoke pity, to evade taxes, to receive subsidies (Brunsson, 2002; Burns and Stalker, 1961).

In a reaction to Shove and Walker (Shove and Walker,

disagree with the reproach of a return to social

2007), two eminent Dutch transition theorists

those claims, and close association with firms makes them more vulnerable. Innovation in general, as in

engineering: "perhaps transition management has a

successful restructuring of the system to deal with environmental change, or make use of unseen

suggestion of social engineering but it is really a

opportunities, cannot be described, recognized

governance concept for exploring new paths in a

reflexive manner. We developed the concept of

uniformly, it cannot be predicted, it cannot be forced. Innovation, and by extension transition, are post- hoc

transition management as a cyclical process of

searching, experimenting, and learning, merely as a

response to deterministic, blueprint-based steering

ascriptions in and by social systems, reinterpretations

of previous decisions that came about in networks, through shifting alliances, in competition over

methods used during the last decades" (Rotmans and

discourse is a clear sign that the ideology of social

Kemp, 2008). For us, transition management base enabling success cannot be circumscribed.

resources. In this situation, a sufficient knowledge

engineering is very much alive. codes, are recurring feature of an otherwise Reflexivity

and productive difference,

mixing different

This being said, some of the insights and precepts of

shapeshifting phenomenon. Nevertheless, recurring modernist ideologies tend to install expectations that 11

transition management we do consider valuable. Our systems theoretical analysis of innovation, transition,

innovation is one phenomenon, that it can be engineered, and, in social democracies like the

Netherlands, that government has the duty at least to BIBLIOGRAPHY

contribute to the engineering efforts (Duineveld et al.,

2007; Duineveld et al., 2009; Luhmann, 1990; Scott, 1998; Van Assche, 2004).

Akrich M, Callon M, Latour B, 2002a, "The Key to Success in Innovation. Part I: The art of interessement." International

Akrich M, Callon M, Latour B, 2002b, "The Key to Success in

Journal of Innovation Management 6 187-206

All the problems signalled with politics and

administration trying to manage society, are

Innovation. Part II: The art of choosing good spokespersons."

Allina - Pisano J, 2008 Post Soviet Potemkin villages. Politics and

International Journal of Innovation Management 6 207-225

intensified when government, supported by scientific

property rights in the black earth (Cambridge University

misconceptions, tries to standardize innovation and

Andersen S, 2005, "How to Improve the Outcome of State Welfare

Press, Cambridge)

enforce the fictitious standards found. What then,

Services: Governance in a Systems-theoretical Perspective."

could be positive recommendations regarding

Public Administration 83 891-917

transition management. What can governments do to

Andriani V, 2009 Transition in electricity sector related to

facilitate transition?

renewable energy technologies (RETs) application in

Ark v, Ronald, 2005 Planning, contract en commitment; naar een

Indonesia (s.n.], [S.l.)

1. Examine whether there really is a systemic lack of

innovation. Who is saying this, why, based on which

grounds? What are implied definitions of innovation

planning, Landgebruiksplanning, Wageningen University,

relationeel perspectief op gebiedscontracten in de ruimtelijke

and transition?

Avelino F, Rotmans J, 2009, "Power in Transition: An

Wageningen

2. Avoid de- differentiation. Differentiation enables

Interdisciplinary Framework to Study Power in Relation to Structural Change." European Journal of Social Theory 12 543-

refined adaptation, hence innovation.

3. Facilitate sustained reflection, as second order

Baas J H, 1995 Bestuurskunde in hoofdlijnen. (Wolters-Noordhoff,

569

interdependencies in and between function systems

observation,

on

path

dependencies

a nd

Beunen R, Knaap W v d, Biesbroek G, 2009, "Implementation and

Groningen)

integration of EU environmental directives. Experiences from the Netherlands." Environmental policy and governance 19

and organizations. 4. Clarify, simplify, maintain and enforce rules of

Bos A P, 2010 Reflexive Interactive Design (RIO) = Reflexive

56-73

5. Decide on the acceptable level of redistribution of

economic and scientific competition.

Interactive Design (RIO) (Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad)

the risk taken by innovative actors.

6. Decide on the acceptable level of public investment

Brunsson N, 2002 The organization of hypocrisy. Talk, decisions and actions in organizations. (Business School Press, Oslo:

in risky, but potentially innovative science.

Burns T, Stalker G, 1961 The management of innovation.

Copenhagen)

7. Invest in general education and media quality,

Collins K, 2006 Clan politics and regime transition in Central Asia.

(Tavistock, London)

enabling the circulation and reinterpretation of

(Cambridge: University Press, Cambridge)

various semantics, thus spreading innovative

potential more broadly.

Czarniawska B, 1997 Narrating the organization. Dramas of

Douglas M, Wildavsky A, 1982 Risk and culture. An essay on the

institutional identity (University of Chicago Press, Chicago)

selection of technical and environmental dangers. (University

For Luhmann, our functionally differentiated society

is a remarkable evolutionary achievement, and

Duineveld M, Beunen R, During R, 2007 The difference between

of California Press, Berkeley)

functional differentiation, in a Luhmannian

terugkerend maakbaarheidsdenken in beleidsonderzoek

knowing the path and walking the path : een essay over het

perspective, is surely the most important innovation

Analyse, Wageningen)

(Wageningen Universiteit,

Leerstoelgroep Sociaal-

ruimtelijke

nobody noticed it, and so systemic, that no actor has a

of modern society, yet so slow an achievement that

Duineveld M, Beunen R, van Assche K A M, During R, Ark R G H v, 2009, "The relationship between description and prescription

claim to fame.

agriculture and food chains in peri-urban areas Eds K J Poppe,

in transition research.", in Transitions towards sustainable

C Termeer, M Slingerland (Wageningen Academic Publishers,

During R, van Assche K A M, Zande A N v d, 2009, "Culture,

Wageningen)

the analysis of innovation in INTERREG programs", in

12
innovation and governance in Europe; Systems theories and

Transitions towards Sustainable Agriculture, Food Chains in

Peri-Urban Areas Eds K J Poppe, K Termeer (Wageningen

Elster J, Offe C, Preuss U K, 1998 Institutional design in post-

Academic Publishers, Wageningen) pp 127-146

Latour B, 1987 Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. (Harvard University Press,

communist societies. Rebuilding the ship at sea. (Cambridge Latour B, 2004 Politics of Nature. How to bring the sciences into

Cambridge)

democracy. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge) Fischer F, 1990 Technocracy and the politics of expertise. (Sage

University Press, Cambridge)

Fischer F, 2000 Citizens, experts and the environment: The

Publications, Newbury Park)

Ledeneva A, 2005 How Russia really works. (Cornell University

politics of local knowledge. (Duke University Press, London)

Lester R K, Piore M, 2004 Innovation: The missing dimension.

Press, Cornell)

Frissen P, 1999 Politics, governance and techniology. A

narrative on the virtual Cheltenham)

state. (Edward Elgar, postmodern

of (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA) Loorbach A, 2007 Transition Management. New mode

governance for sustainable development. (Erasmus

Frissen P H A, 2007 De staat van verschil. Een kritiek van de

Universiteit, Rotterdam)

Loorbach D, 2009, "Transition Management for Sustainable Fuchs S, 2001 Against essentialism. A theory of culture and Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance

gelijkheid (Van Gennep, Amsterdam)

Gibbons M, 1994 The new production of knowledge: the dynamics

society. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge) Loos A, Spaapen J, Wamelink F, Drooge L, 2007 Zichtbaar maken

Framework." Governance 23 161-183

of science and research in contemporary societies. (Sage, methode in praktijk. (NWO, Den Haag) van

maatschappelijke relevantie van kennis. De

sci_Quest

Hendriks C M, Grin J, 2007a, "Contextualizing Reflexive

London)

Luhmann N, 1989 Ecological communication. (University of

Governance: the Politics of Dutch Transitions to Luhmann N, 1990 Political theory in the welfare state. (Mouton de

Chicago Press, Chicago)

Sustainability" Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9 333 - 350

Hendriks C M, Grin J, 2007b, "Contextualizing Reflexive Luhmann N, 1995 Social systems. (Stanford University Press,

Gruyter, Berlin)

Governance: the Politics of Dutch Transitions to

Stanford)

Sustainability." Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9 333 - 350

Luhmann N, 1997 Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. (Suhrkamp,

Luhmann N, 2000 Organisation und entscheidung.

Frankfurt)

Hernes T, Bakken H, 2002 Autopoietic organization theory.

Hoppe R, 2002 Van flipperkast naar grensverkeer. Veranderende

Luhmann N, 2002 Risk. A sociological theory. (Aldine Transaction,

(Copenhagen business school, Copenhagen)

(Westdeutscher Verlag)

visies op de relatie tussen wetenschap en beleid. (Adviesraad voor het Wetenschaps- en Technologiebeleid,) Luhmann N, 2004 Law as a social system. (Oxford University

New Brunswick)

Jansson D, 1989, "The pragmatic uses of what is taken for granted.

Press, Oxford)

Martens P, Rotmans J, 2002 Transitions in a globalising world International studies of management and organization 19 49-

Project leaders applications of investment calculus."

Kemp R, Loorbach D, 2006, "Transition management: A reflexive

63 Morgan G, 1986 Images of organization. (Sage, Beverley Hills)

(Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse [etc.])

governance approach. ", in Reflexive governance for

Nassehi A, 2005, "Organizations as decision machines: Niklas

sustainable development. Eds J-P Voß, D Bauknecht, R Kemp Contemporary Organization Theory. Eds C Jones, R Munro

Luhmann's theory of organized social systems. ", in

(London, Blackwell Publishing.) Kemp R, Loorbach D, Rotmans J, 2007a, "Transition management

(Edward Elgar, Cheltenham) pp 103-130

as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development" International Journal of Sustainable

Ogink G, Holwerda D, Ruiter A M, 2004 Monitoring transitie

Pahl-Wostl C, 2006, "Transitions towards adaptive management of

duurzame landbouw (Expertisecentrum LNV, Ede)

Kemp R, Loorbach D, Rotmans J, 2007b, "Transition management

Development and World Ecology 14 78-91

water facing climate and global change." Water Resour

sustainable development." International Journal of Sustainable as

Peet G v d, 2009 Laat duizend bloemen bloeien : een bloemlezing

a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards

Management 21 49-62

uit cluster Verduurzaming Productie & Transitie (VPT)

Kern F, Howlett M, 2009, "Implementing transition management

Development and World Ecology 14 78-91

as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector." Poppe K J, Termeer C, Slingerland M, 2009 Transitions towards

(Wageningen UR, Lelystad)

Policy Sciences 42 391-408 (Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen)

sustainable agriculture and food chains in peri-urban

areas.

King M, Tornhill C, 2003 Niklas Luhmann's theory of politics and

Potters J, Buurma J, de Buck A, 2007 Inspiratie voor transitie :

Klerkx L, 2008 Matching demand and supply in the Dutch

law. (Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills)

leren van pioniers en hun zoektochten (Praktijkonderzoek

agricultural knowledge infrastructure : the emergence and

Plant & Omgeving, Lelystad)

embedding of new intermediaries in an agricultural

Potters J, van der Peet G, Heeres J, de Jong D, Korevaar H, de Wolf P, 2009 Leren hoe kennis wordt benut : monitoren en

Met lit. opg. - Met samenvatting in het Engels en Nederlands, s.n.],

innovation system in transition Proefschrift Wageningen

evalueren van kennisbenutting in onderzoekscluster

13
[S.l. verduurzaming, productie en transitie (Praktijkonderzoek Plant & Omgeving, Lelystad)

Rip A, Kemp R, 1998, "Technological change.", in Human choice

climate change. Eds S Rayner, E L Malone (Batelle Press,

Stark D, 2009 The Sense of Dissonance. Accounts of Worth in

Columbus Ohio) pp 327-399 Stichting InnovatieNetwerk Transitie Duurzame L, 2003

Economic Life. (Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ)

Rotmans J, 2000 Transities en transitiemanagement: de casus van een emmisiearme energievoorziening. (Icis, Maastricht)

Knowledge network transition sustainable agriculture : Bsik project plan (InnovatieNetwerk Groene Ruimte en

Rotmans J, 2003 Transitiemanagement : sleutel voor een duurzame samenleving (Van Gorcum, Assen) Teubner G, 1996, "Double bind. Hybrid arrangements as de-

Agrocluster, Den Haag)

Rotmans J, 2006 Transitiemanagement: sleutel voor een economics 152 59-64

paradoxifiers." Journal of

institutional and theoretical

Rotmans J, Kemp R, 2008, "Detour ahead: a response to Shove and

duurzame samenleving (Van Gorcum, Assen)

management." Environment and Planning A 40 1006-1011

Walker about the perilous road of transition

urban planning and design, the people and their histories.

Van Assche K, 2004 Signs in time. An interpretive account

of

Rotmans J, Loorbach D, Brugge R v d, 2005,

"Transitiemanagement en duurzame ontwikkeling; CoVan Assche K, 2006 Over goede bedoelingen en hun schadelijke

(Wageningen University, Wageningen)

evolutionaire sturing in het licht van complexiteit" Van Assche K, & Duineveld, M. 2013, "The good, the bad, and the

bijwerkingen. (Innovatienetwerk groene ruimte, Utrecht: )

difference.", International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19 (1): Schiltz M, 2007, "Space is the place. The laws of form and social

Beleidswetenschap." 19 3-23

self- referential. Heritage planning and the productivity of Scott J C, 1998 Seeing like a state. (Yale University Press, New

1-15. systems." Thesis Eleven 88 8- 30

Van Assche K, Leinfelder H, 2008, "Nut en noodzaak van een Seidl D, 2005 Organizational identity and self- transformation. An

Haven)

planning 28 28-38

kritische planologie. Suggesties vanuit Nederland en Amerika op basis van Niklas Luhmann's systeemtheorie." Ruimte en

Van Assche K, Verschraegen G, 2008, "The limits of planning. Seidl D, Becker K, 2005 Niklas Luhmann and organization studies. Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory and the analysis of

autopoietic perspective. (Ashgate, Aldershot)

planning and planning ambitions." Planning Theory 7 263-283 Shove E, Walker G, 2007, "CAUTION! Transitions ahead: politics,

(Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen)

practice, and sustainable transition management." Environment and Planning A 39 763-770

Van Assche K, Verschraegen G, Salukvadze J, 2010, "Changing

Planning Practice and Research 25 (3):377-395.

frames. Expert and citizen participation in Georgian

planning."

Sievers E, 2002, "Uzbekistans mahalla: from Soviet to absolutist

Van Assche, K., R. Beunen and M. Duineveld (2012) Performing and comparative law at Chicago Kent 2, 91-150. Success and Failure in Governance: Dutch Planning

residential community associations." Journal of

international

Simon F, 2002, "The deconstruction and reconstruction of

Experiences. Public Administration, 90 (3): 567-581

Verdery K, 2003 The vanishing hectare. Property and value in Systeme 8 283-293

authority and the role of

management and

consulting." Soziale

Voß J-P, Smith A, Grin J, 2009, "Designing long-term policy:

postsocialist Transsylvania. (Cornell University Press, Ithaca)

Smith A, Kern F, 2009, "The transitions storyline in Dutch

rethinking transition management." Policy Sciences 42 275Smith Stirling 2010 Ecology & Society XXXX 302

environmental policy" Environmental Politics

18 78-98

Spaapen J, Dijstelbloem H, Wamelink F, 2007 Evaluating research

Weick K, 1995 Sense- making in organizations. (Sage, Thousand

(Consultative Committee of Sector Councils for Research and

in context: a method for comprehensive assessment. Willke H, 1994 Systemtheorie II: Interventionstheorie. (UTB,

Oaks)

Development (COS), The Hague)

Wilson G A, 2007 Multifunctional agriculture : a transition theory

Stuttgart)

perspective (CABI, Wallingford [etc.]).

14



doc_847672364.docx