Spatial transfer of socio-technical innovations

35

Indian and Kenyan cases: How can process thinking and creating learning processes be combined with attempts on wider replication and up-scaling?

Experiments lead to a technological niche when the number of experiments increases – when more actors are attracted and they start forming networks, sharing ideas, expectations and lessons. According to Raven (2005), experiments should be done in ways that contribute to such processes, which he calls processes of cosmopolitanism. Projects are often not designed with an emphasis on disseminating knowledge, and the learning remains local – i.e.

with the companies and other involved actors. Raven emphasizes the need for monitoring results from experiments and for sharing experiences widely, including doing explicit comparisons with similar experiments in other locations, publishing results, and organizing seminars and meetings. Furthermore, Seyfang and Smith (2007) suggest that local action must connect with higher-level policies, capabilities and infrastructures, and that grassroots innovations should take advantage of windows of opportunity that may emerge.

Although a large number of practical projects are necessary on the way towards socio-technical systems change, they are not sufficient. Institutionalization has to come in addition, and is politically and economically difficult (Smith and Stirling 2010).⁹ Socio-technical experimentation in combination with various governance efforts paves the way for institutionalization, which in turn facilitates further strengthening and spread of the activities on the ground. Institutionalization “involves mobilizing serious selection pressures against the incumbent regime and redirecting vast institutional, economic, and political commitments into promising niches along desired pathways” (Smith and Stirling 2010, p. 7).

Institutionalization is a necessary part of up-scaling, through “increasing the scale, scope and intensity of niche experiments by building a constituency behind a new (sustainable) technology. This sets in motion interactive learning processes and institutional coordination and adaptation, which helps to create the necessary conditions for the successful diffusion and development of those technologies” (Coenen et al. 2010). According to Fuenfschilling and Truffer (2014), institutionalization can be viewed as the process of structuration – i.e. the gradual making of the structures or elements that make up socio-technical systems and strengthening their position in society. They point out that an important part of such processes is the creation of new meaning systems, “emerging institutional logics” and societal discourses. The actors who carry out socio-technical experiments often attempt to contribute to such “institutional work” (Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2014).

36

2.4.1. “Inter-local learning” – technology transfer as learning between projects

The concept of “inter-local” learning is used about learning between projects, both within and between countries, by researchers working from a socio-technical systems perspective.

According to Raven et al. (2008), inter-local learning means learning between specific projects in different geographical contexts, where a follow-up project copies successful elements of a previous project. This is one of the sources of knowledge for project implementers.

In addition to such direct learning between projects, insights accumulate and translate from local experiments into a generic field of context-independent lessons that new projects draw on. Such lessons can be seen as emerging structures or rules of a socio-technical system – an aggregate niche level, also called the “global” niche level, but not global in the geographical sense (Raven et al. 2008, Schot and Geels 2008). This is described as an

“emerging field or proto-regime supported by a network of actors concerned with defining de-contextualized, shared rules such as problem agendas, search heuristics and abstract theories and models independent of their local context.” This is another way of describing how a niche comes into being and gradually develops. These niche socio-technical systems (“reservoirs of rules”) influence new activities on the ground in other places.

The new socio-technical experiments thereby draw on experiences from other past and similar projects, and represent local variations of a generic design (Coenen et al. 2010), in other words a contextualization of a niche innovation (Raven et al. 2008). Examples of structures or rules that influence new projects are general organizational models, financing structures, technical standards and shared ideas about what users want (Raven et al. 2008).

Experiences from the local project level is shared and aggregated through different types of mechanisms, including “aggregation activities” by dedicated formal and informal actors.

These activities include standardization, model building, handbook writing, online forums, site visits, and excursions.

Conversely, when actors draw on generic lessons in new projects, it is pointed out as important to focus on local “re-invention”, because projects should be “locally embedded;

provide local benefits; establish continuity with existing physical, social and cognitive structures; and apply locally appropriate communication and participation procedures”

(Raven et al. 2008, p. 469). Local benefits may include local energy independence or creation of a new marketable product, local employment, exchange of resources between town and country, improvement of community services, and continuity with existing physical, social and cognitive structures and resources (Raven et al. 2008, Späth and Rohracher 2012). This is relevant for direct learning between projects, which is important in this dissertation.

Moreover, the aggregated niche experience is also likely to have an impact during learning between specific projects.

Although inter-local learning has been considered important for socio-technical innovation, there has been little elaboration on how it could be carried out and utilized in strategic and effective ways, as is investigated in this dissertation. Through analyzing a stepwise activity for transfer of social and technological innovations between India and

37

Kenya, the dissertation contributes to filling this gap. Interestingly, several of the concepts on socio-technical change presented earlier in this chapter might be helpful for exploring how to utilize the opportunity for learning and inspiration between innovative uses of technology in different places and countries. These are concepts that enhance the understanding of technological change as socio-technical, and thereby how examples to learn from can be understood as part of wider socio-technical systems (niches and regimes), and societal contexts (geographical levels, socio-cultural contexts).

Sensitivity to local context and the local embeddedness of the projects seem to be key aspects for success of such transfer of innovations. Since an emerging socio-technical system is the result of co-evolution of technical and social elements, new projects contribute to the continuation of such a co-evolution process in new places, regions and countries. Local, technical innovation shapes local contexts, and local contexts shape local socio-technical innovations (Coenen et al. 2012, Späth and Rohracher 2012).

Figure 2 below has been used in the literature in order to show learning processes between the local and “global” niche levels, and between local projects (Geels and Raven 2006, Coenen et al. 2010, 297). The mechanisms shown in the figure represent processes of building up socio-technical systems in niches, of which inter-local learning is only a small part. This dissertation zooms in on the potential for systematic knowledge sharing and learning between specific projects in different places and countries (marked by bold arrows in the figure), and explores it through action research. The process of transferring socio-technical innovations from India in order to develop a project in Kenya can be seen as a case of inter-local learning, and simultaneously as international knowledge sharing or spatial transfer of socio-technical innovations in general.

Figure 2. Inter-local learning and aggregation of lessons learned, based on Coenen et al. (2010) and Geels and Raven (2006)

38

There is a call for a more reflexive understanding of the conditions under which findings from one spatial “transition” context may be transferred to another one (STRN 2010). When analyzing the “territorial setting” and the socio-spatial construction of socio-technical change, it becomes possible to understand how and why geography matters, and how much influence the local actors have had on the local changes (Coenen et al. 2012).

2.4.2. Literature on technology transfer to countries in the South

A large part of the literature on international technology transfer to countries in the South has focused on how developing countries can catch up with rich industrialized countries in technological advancement, industrial production and production of their own capital goods, as well as large-scale energy and water supply (Maskus 2004). Channels for technology transfer between countries identified in this literature include trade in products, trade in knowledge, direct foreign investment, and international movements of people, and the transfer has traditionally been assumed to go from North to South. Central issues discussed are the policies of technology exporting countries, spillover effects from foreign direct investment, protection of infant industries and competition issues. Authors have also focused on norms and standards set by multilateral organizations, trade terms and intellectual property rights (Soete 1985, Reddy and Zhao 1990, Grübler and Nakićenović 1991, Bell and Albu 1999, Hoekman et al. 2004). Such literature on technology transfer does not provide insights on transfer of knowledge, experience and equipment relevant for implementation and use of technology in local communities, which is the focus of this dissertation.

Some other literature on technology transfer has been produced in relation to transfer of “clean technologies” to combat climate change and at the same time create economic and social development in the South. One part of this literature concerns so called “leap-frogging”; focusing on how developing countries could bypass the “old fashioned traditional technologies” (Mielnik and Goldemberg 2002). Like the literature on “catching up” the literature on “leapfrogging” is less relevant for this dissertation since it is mostly focused on the macro level of foreign direct investment, energy intensity in the industry and pollution trends. A critical voice in the literature on leapfrogging is Perkins (2003, p.185) who states that national governments in developing countries would have to “challenge entrenched domestic and foreign interests” to make leapfrogging possible, because the preferences of such interests lie to a greater or lesser extent along a business-as-usual path.

Some of the literature on transfer of “clean technologies” has started to have an integrated view on the social and the technical, and see socio-technical change as social learning processes (Martinot et al. 1997, Halsnæs et al. 2007). A special report from IPCC on technology transfer (Metz et al. 2000) was worked out as a collective effort of around 200 authors from across the world representing a variety of disciplines.¹⁰ The report presents a view that technology transfer constitutes a broad set of processes covering the flows of know-how, experience and equipment. It comprises of the process of learning to utilize and replicate the technology, including the capacity to adapt it to local conditions and integrate it

10 Reference is given to the report itself instead of the underlying academic literature, because the report goes beyond previous literature in its descriptions of what technology transfer may be constituted by.

39

with indigenous technologies. Elements of successful transfer include consumer and business awareness, access to information, availability of a wide range of technical, business, management and regulatory skills, and sound economic policy and regulatory frameworks.

Participatory approaches and strengthening of networks are suggested elements, and it is recommended not to ignore late stages of the transfer process. The report emphasizes the sustainable development perspective of technology transfer, i.e. the importance of creating social and economic development at the same time as addressing climate change and other environmental problems, which is also pointed out by Román et al. (2012).

Barriers to technology transfer mentioned in this literature are especially related to the human and institutional capacity as well as science and educational infrastructure in the countries where technology is going to be used, called “recipient” or “host countries”. A lack of ability to develop innovations and replicate them is also mentioned. So-called “active technological behavior” by technology importing firms is called for to avoid technological dependence and stagnation. Emphasis is put on the characteristics of the “recipient”, including ability to absorb and use new technology efficiently (Metz et al. 2000, Halsnæs et al.

2007, p.160).

Some of this literature has come as a reaction to the way technology transfer is seen in practice within international mechanisms for technology transfer, such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It is argued by Byrne et al. (2011) that the current form of CDM seems to be influenced by an understanding of technology as “hardware”, with some understanding of the need for “software”, mainly in terms of cooperation and maintenance skills. A range of societal problems are assumed to get solved through such mechanisms for transfer of low-carbon technologies, including problems of energy access, equity, security, and environment. However, considerations of social conditions and economic realities of the people who could benefit from the technological change are often insufficient (Murphy 2001).

Spatial transfer of technology, including South-South transfer is also mentioned in literature on technological, economic and social development in the South, in relation to areas like telecommunication and use of renewable energy technologies, which are enabling technologies that contribute to social and economic development, even though they are outside of the traditional manufacturing domain (Romijn and Caniëls 2011). These authors argue that the persistent poverty problem might require more emphasis on the development of innovative social and technological changes based on knowledge present in developing countries, suitable for local needs and informed by local institutional and socio-economic contexts. They find that some innovation activities require the capacity for prototype development and capabilities to initiate manufacturing, which only a few large developing countries will be able to do in the foreseeable future. Since innovations from these countries are likely to be suitable for poorer developing countries, South-South technology transfer and cooperation has a large potential according to (Romijn and Caniëls 2011). Moreover, they argue that creative, adaptive innovation should be encouraged, including technology blending and grassroots-driven indigenous innovations. The need for increased attention to creative innovation capabilities in efforts for technological change is also highlighted by Byrne et al.

40

(2011) who posit that local socio-technical experimentation is an important part of technology transfer for cultivating relevant knowledge.

All parts of this dissertation are based on a socio-technical systems approach, although the perspective has mostly been developed and used in the context of rich, industrialized countries in the North. Researchers from specific countries dominate the Dutch-originated literature on sustainability transitions (Coenen et al. 2012). Although some studies have been carried out in areas of the South, these are still exceptions, including Berkhout et al. (2010) in Asian countries, Byrne (2009) in Kenya, Ahlborg (2015) in Tanzania and Mozambique, Romijn et al. (2010) in India, and Ulsrud et al. (2011) in India. These studies show that these theoretical tools can give fruitful insights in factors influencing the emergence of innovative socio-technical systems in a diversity of geographical contexts.

However, it remains important to question and reconsider the relevance of these theories in contexts different from where they originated, as suggested by Coenen et al. (2012). They call for an increased territorial sensitivity in this field of research, with more reflection on the spatial contexts and conditions, and more attention to the geographical diversity. The conclusion of this dissertation, Chapter 9, provides a reflection on these issues.