A Brief Introduction to the
Multi-Level Perspective (MLP)
T. Steward - November 2012
In brief...
• What is it?
– A means for explaining how technological transitions
come about
– A means to understanding the interaction of actors,
environments and innovations
– A bridge between evolutionary economics and
technical studies
1
Basic Explanation of the
levels...
2
Micro Level - Niches
• This is where radical
innovation happens
• ‘Act as incubation rooms’
from normal market
forces – allow for
research and learning
through experience
• Provide space and time
for supporting networks to
be established eg. Supply
chains, industry contacts
• Eg. Military investment in
jet engines and radar
• Can be created by
landscape developments
3
Routine-based Technological Technological
behaviour Regimes Trajectories
Meso-Level - Regimes
• The ‘rule-set or grammar’ of
processes, technologies, Stability
skills, corporate cultures and
artefacts embedded in
institutions and
infrastructures.
• Cultivate incremental
improvement along a
trajectory
• Can affect change in the
landscape
• Regime shifts are the result
of a cascade of changes
over time Incremental
Improvement
4
(along trajectory)
Moving from niche to regime
• Evolution as ‘variation and selection’ – niches
provide vast array of possible innovations, and
regimes act as the selection environment
• If tensions emerge between parts of the regime,
these can be filled by niche innovations
• Technical breakthrough with hybridisation – new
technologies can physically link with old to provide
a stepping stone, and avoid competing head-to-
head.
5
Macro Level - Landscape
• Forms the ‘external
structure or context for
interactions of actors’
• Factors such as oil prices,
economic growth, wars,
immigration, broad
political coalitions, cultural
norms, environmental
problems and paradigms
• Slow to change
A more nuanced approach...
Evolution of
Landscape
Regime puts
pressure on
landscape Shape of
regime
changed by
niche
innovations
Niches put
pressure
on regimes
Variety of early Move towards
‘innovations’ dominant design
Some Critiques and Responses
• Can neglect economic variables
(Foxon, 2011)
• Lack of analysis of agency*,**
(Smith et al., 2005)
• Unclear how the conceptual model should be applied**
(Berkhout et al., 2004)
• Bias towards ‘bottom-up’ innovations*
(Berkhout et al., 2004)
• Possible omission of institutions and ideologies
(From work of: Meadowcroft, 2011)
• May benefit from greater emphasis of politics
(From work of: Kern, 2011; Meadowcroft, 2011)
*Responses can be found in Geels (2011)
** Responses can be found in Geels and Schot (2007)
References
• Berkhout, F., Smith, A. and Stirling, A. (2004) Socio-tecnological regimes and
transition contexts, in Elzen, B., Geels, F. and Green, K. Eds. System Innovation and
the transition to sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham: 48-75
• Foxon, T. (2011) A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a
sustainable low carbon economy, Ecological Economics, 70, 2258-2267
• Geels, F. (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes:
a multi-level perspective and a case study, Research Policy, 31, 1257–1274
• Geels, F. and Schot, J. (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways,
Research Policy, 3, 36, 399-417
• Geels, F. (2011) The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses
to seven criticisms, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1, 24-40
• Geels, F. (2012) A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the
multi-level perspective into transport studies, Journal of Transport Geography, 24,
471-482
• Kern, F. (2011) Ideas, institutions, and interests: explaining policy divergence in
fostering ‘system innovations’ towards sustainability, Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 29, 1116-1134
• Meadowcroft, J. (2011) Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions,
Environmental Innovations and Societal Transitions, 1, 70-75
• Smith, A., Stirling, A. and Berkhout, F. (2005) The governance of sustainable socio-
technical transitions, Research Policy, 34, 1491-1510
