Analysis of the New "Transformative Change" Paradigm in Innovation Policy

Document Type : Research Article


1 Ph.D. Candidate of Science and Technology Policy, Department of Information Technology Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Management and economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Department of Technology Management and Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Information Technology Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran


Since the beginning of the 21st century, innovation policy scholars have spoken in new and innovative terms about new phenomena in the field of innovation policy, which are different from the common paradigms of the innovation policy scene, namely research and development and the innovation system. This emerging approach, which is based on theories of multi-level perspective (MLP), transition management (TM), strategic niche management (SNM), and responsible research and innovation (RRI), has been considered by many researchers and has become popular as a paradigm shift in scientific sources. In this article, by systematically reviewing the history of the transformational paradigm, 33 articles were selected from 994 articles searched in the Scopus database and studied to extract the theoretical foundations, rationales, and policy implications of this paradigm. Accordingly, the lack of correlation between social and environmental development with technology advancement, the role of the regime and the niche as the symbols of resistance and change, the normative orientation of innovation, and the need for systemic innovation as theoretical foundations; Multi-level approach, endogenous and participatory approach, radical change in gradual stages, diversity and guided choice and simultaneous attention to development and destruction as rationales; and development perspectives in the field of change, organizing and supporting new markets, entrepreneurial experimentation, transformation in the pattern of legitimacy, and tangible change in the regime's laws were identified as policy implications of the paradigm. Finally, attention to the geography and global political economy, consideration of the unsustainable development (especially in the developing context), and the development of the roles of market, businesses and intermediaries were proposed as the policy implications for the development and implementation of transformative change paradigm.


  1. Andersen, A. D., Steen, M., Mäkitie, T., Hanson, J., Thune, T. M., & Soppe, B. (2020). The role of inter-sectoral dynamics in sustainability transitions: A comment on the transitions research agenda. Environmental Innovation &Societal Transitions, 34, 348-351.
  2. Antal, M., Mattioli, G., & Rattle, I. (2020). Let's focus more on negative trends: A comment on the transitions research agenda. Environmental Innovation &Societal Transitions, 34, 359-362.
  3. Binz, C., Coenen, L., Murphy, J. T., & Truffer, B. (2020). Geographies of transition—From topical concerns to theoretical engagement: A comment on the transitions research agenda. Environmental Innovation &Societal Transitions, 34, 1-3.
  4. Boon, W. P., Edler, J., & Robinson, D. K. (2020). Market formation in the context of transitions: A comment on the transitions agenda. Environmental Innovation &Societal Transitions, 34, 346-347.
  5. Borrás, S. (2008). The widening &deepening of innovation policy: What conditions provide for effective governance?. Georgia Institute of Technology.
  6. Carbajo, R., & Cabeza, L. F. (2018). Renewable energy research &technologies through responsible research &innovation looking glass: Reflexions, theoretical approaches &contemporary discourses. Applied Energy, 211, 792-808.
  7. Carson, M., & Burns, T. R. (2009). Public Policy Paradigms: Theory &Practice of Paradigm Shifts in the European Union.
  8. Chataway, J., Chux, D., Kanger, L., Ramirez, M., Schot, J., & Steinmueller, E. (2017). Developing &enacting transformative innovation policy. A Comparative Study, 1-28.
  9. Delmas, M. A., Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2019). Understanding the role of the corporation in sustainability transitions. Organization & Environment, 32(2), 87-97.
  10. Diercks, G., Larsen, H., & Steward, F. (2019). Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm. Research Policy, 48(4), 880-894.
  11. Doyon, A., Coffey, B., Moloney, S., de Haan, F., & Bosomworth, K. (2017). Exploring the contribution of transitions management to inform regional futures. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, The, 23(3), 321-343.
  12. Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2012). Public Procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research policy, 41(10), 1757-1769.
  13. Fatemi, S. M., & Arasti, M. R. (2019). Priority-Setting in Science, Technology &Innovation [In Persian]. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 11(2), 119-133.
  14. Foray, D., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2012). Public R&D; &social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D; programs?. Research policy, 41(ARTICLE), 1697-1702.
  15. Fraaije, A., & Flipse, S. M. (2020). Synthesizing an implementation framework for responsible research &innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(1), 113-137.
  16. Gassler, H., Polt, W., & Rammer, C. (2007). Priority setting in research & technology policy-historical developments &recent trends. Joanneum Research, Institute of Technology &Regional Policy, Working Paper, (36-2007).
  17. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective &a case-study. Research policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274.
  18. Geels, F. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms &elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 39, 187-201.
  19. Genus, A., & Coles, A. M. (2008). Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions. Research policy, 37(9), 1436-1445.
  20. Ghazinoory, S. (May 29, 2019). Investigating the infographic of Iran's innovation ecosystem. Shargh newspaper.
  21. Ghosh, B., Kivimaa, P., Ramirez, M., Schot, J., & Torrens, J. (2021). Transformative outcomes: assessing &reorienting experimentation with transformative innovation policy. Science &Public Policy, 48(5), 739-756.
  22. Gorissen, L., Spira, F., Meynaerts, E., Valkering, P., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2018). Moving towards systemic change? Investigating acceleration dynamics of urban sustainability transitions in the Belgian City of Genk. Journal of Cleaner Production, 173, 171-185.
  23. Grillitsch, M., Hansen, T., & Madsen, S. (2021). Transformative innovation policy: a novel approach?. In Handbook on alternative theories of innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  24. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, &the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative politics, 275-296.
  25. Hansen, U. E., Nygaard, I., Romijn, H., Wieczorek, A., Kamp, L. M., & Klerkx, L. (2018). Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Stocktaking, new contributions &a research agenda. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 198-203.
  26. Hopkins, D., Kester, J., Meelen, T., & Schwanen, T. (2020). Not more but different: a comment on the transitions research agenda. Environmental Innovation &Societal Transitions, 34, 4-6.
  27. ISTI (2019). A look at the Vice President for Science &Technology for the Development of the Entrepreneurship &Innovation Ecosystem, the determination that the "ecosystem" created.
  28. Jenkins, K. E., Spruit, S., Milchram, C., Höffken, J., & Taebi, B. (2020). Synthesizing value sensitive design, responsible research &innovation, &energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 69, 101727.
  29. Jenkins, K. E., Spruit, S., Milchram, C., Höffken, J., & Taebi, B. (2020). Synthesizing value sensitive design, responsible research &innovation, &energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 69, 101727.
  30. Johnstone, P., & Newell, P. (2018). Sustainability transitions &the state. Environmental innovation &societal transitions, 27, 72-82.
  31. Kallerud, E., Amanatidou, E., Upham, P., Nieminen, M., Klitkou, A., Olsen, D. S., ... & Scordato, L. (2013). Dimensions of research &innovation policies to address gr&&global challenges.
  32. Kanger, L., Sovacool, B. K., & Noorkõiv, M. (2020). Six policy intervention points for sustainability transitions: A conceptual framework &a systematic literature review. Research Policy, 49(7), 104072.
  33. Kemp, R. (2011). Ten themes for eco-innovation policies in Europe. SAPI EN. S. Surveys &Perspectives Integrating Environment &Society, (4.2).
  34. Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 14(1), 78-91.
  35. Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technology analysis & strategic management, 10(2), 175-198.
  36. Kern, F. (2012). Using the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions to assess innovation policy. Technological Forecasting &Social Change, 79(2), 298-310.
  37. Khmara, Y., & Kronenberg, J. (2020). Degrowth in the context of sustainability transitions: In search of a common ground. Journal of Cleaner Production, 267, 122072.
  38. Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205-217.
  39. Kivimaa, P., Hyysalo, S., Boon, W., Klerkx, L., Martiskainen, M., & Schot, J. (2019). Passing the baton: How intermediaries advance sustainability transitions in different phases. Environmental Innovation &Societal Transitions, 31, 110-125.
  40. Köhler, J. (2012). A comparison of the neo-Schumpeterian theory of Kondratiev waves &the multi-level perspective on transitions. Environmental Innovation &Societal Transitions, 3, 1-15.
  41. Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., ... & Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art &future directions. Environmental innovation &societal transitions, 31, 1-32.
  42. Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy &gr&challenges. Science &public policy, 45(4), 448-454.
  43. Kuzemko, C., Lawrence, A., & Watson, M. (2019). New directions in the international political economy of energy. Review of International Political Economy, 26(1), 1-24.
  44. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity‐based governance framework. Governance, 23(1), 161-183.
  45. Loorbach, D., Van Der Brugge, R., & Taanman, M. (2008). Governance in the energy transition: Practice of transition management in the Netherlands. International Journal of Environmental Technology &Management, 9(2-3), 294-315.
  46. Loorbach, D., Wittmayer, J., Avelino, F., von Wirth, T., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2020). Transformative innovation &translocal diffusion. Environmental Innovation &Societal Transitions, 35, 251-260.
  47. Malekpour, S., Walker, W. E., de Haan, F. J., Frantzeskaki, N., & Marchau, V. A. (2020). Bridging Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty (DMDU) &Transition Management (TM) to improve strategic planning for sustainable development. Environmental Science & Policy, 107, 158-167.
  48. Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research &its prospects. Research policy, 41(6), 955-967.
  49. Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges &opportunities. Industrial &Corporate Change, 27(5), 803-815.
  50. Miremadi, T. (2019). The Emerging Trends of STI Policy [In Persian]. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 11(2), 619-633.
  51. Narimani, M. (2015). Extracting STI policy framework on the basis of rival economic approaches policy implications case study of Iran technology policies. Tarbiat Modares University.
  52. Newell, P. (2020). Towards a global political economy of transitions: a comment on the transitions research agenda. Environmental innovation &societal transitions, 34, 344-345.
  53. Oh, D. S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. Technovation, 54, 1-6.
  54. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2020). Responsible research &innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. In Emerging technologies: ethics, law &governance (pp. 117-126). Routledge.
  55. Pollex, J., & Lenschow, A. (2018). Surrendering to growth? The European Union's goals for research &technology in the Horizon 2020 framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1863-1871.
  56. Rauschmayer, F., Bauler, T., & Schäpke, N. (2015). Towards a thick understanding of sustainability transitions—Linking transition management, capabilities &social practices. Ecological economics, 109, 211-221.
  57. Ribeiro, B. E., Smith, R. D., & Millar, K. (2017). A mobilising concept? Unpacking academic representations of responsible research &innovation. Science &engineering ethics, 23(1), 81-103.
  58. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. foresight.
  59. Rotmans, J., Loorbach, D., & Kemp, R. (2016). Complexity &transition management. In Complexity &planning (pp. 195-216). Routledge.
  60. Salmenkaita, J. P., & Salo, A. (2002). Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(2), 183-200.
  61. Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management &sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, &policy. Technology analysis & strategic management, 20(5), 537-554.
  62. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation &transformative change. Research policy, 47(9), 1554-1567.
  63. Scordato, L., Klitkou, A., Tartiu, V. E., & Coenen, L. (2018). Policy mixes for the sustainability transition of the pulp &paper industry in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 1216-1227.
  64. Smith, A., Voß, J. P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies &sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective &its challenges. Research policy, 39(4), 435-448.
  65. Steward, F. (2012). Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption &end-use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), 331-343.
  66. Van de Graaf, T., Sovacool, B. K., Ghosh, A., Kern, F., & Klare, M. T. (Eds.). (2016). The palgrave handbook of the international political economy of energy (pp. 3-44). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  67. Voß, J. P., Smith, A., & Grin, J. (2009). Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management. Policy sciences, 42(4), 275-302.
  68. Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology &innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems &multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037-1047.
  69. Wieczorek, A. J. (2018). Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights &their implications for research &policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 204-216.
  70. Wittmayer, J. M., van Steenbergen, F., Rok, A., & Roorda, C. (2016). Governing sustainability: a dialogue between Local Agenda 21 &transition management. Local Environment, 21(8), 939-955.