[This post is intended to follow my previous Reader Response Post 1: Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems Theory]

Advanced by researchers like Frank Geels from the University of Manchester, a new branch of socio-technical systems theory building emerged in the 2000’s focused more broadly on Socio-Technical Systems from a “Multi-Level Perspective” (MLP). It has since been used to better understand how systems level changes can occur in a variety of STS contexts, including alliance building focused on things like environmental sustainability, alternative food networks, and agroecology. As Geels notes (2019, pg. 187, emphasis added):

Combining ideas from evolutionary economics, sociology of innovation, and neo-institutional theory, the MLP [Multi-Level Perspective] emphasizes the importance of radical innovations, while also understanding socio-technical transitions as enacted by multiple social groups (e.g. firms, consumers, social movements, policymakers, researchers, media, investors), who engage in multiple activities (e.g. exploration, learning, debate, negotiation, power struggle, conflict, investment, coalition building, goal-setting) in the context of rules and institutions, including belief systems and norms.

Key concepts advanced by MLP include a recognition that innovations often first occur at a lower, experimental “niche” level, where they face resistance from existing mainstream “socio-technical regimes” above them. As shown in Figure 2 in the paper (Geels, 2019, page 191), it is not until these niche innovations build up to a critical level of momentum, creating pressure on and breaking through the regime above them, that they are able to effect and sustain change at a broader systems level. “Windows of opportunity” for such a socio-technical transition can occur through the pressure exerted by the niche innovations themselves, and/or through changes in the larger “socio-technical landscape” (including policies and regulations which might favor niche innovations).

There is growing interest in applying socio-technical systems and multi-level perspectives to agrifood systems regime change strategies. That includes supporting niche innovations associated with a variety of desired improvements related to sustainability, resilience, equity, health, and food security.

In his systematic review, Hamid El Bilali (2019) emphasizes the importance of understanding and operationalizing insights offered by the MLP, particularly as it relates to support for socio-technical transitions from niche innovations to regime changes. El Bilali also critiques existing research as overly focused on the production phase of agrifood systems, and crop production in particular, while under-representing others stages of the food chain, including food processing, distribution and consumption.

Colin Anderson and his co-authors (2021) delve deeper into these processes and some of the broader issues related to power, politics, and governance in their book, Agroecology Now!: Transformations Towards More Just and Sustainable Food Systems. They define agroecology as “a process of continuous transition based on core principles and a political commitment to both social justice and ecological regeneration”. Their conception of agroecology is that it is not just a set of technical practices focused on environmental sustainability and regeneration, but an approach focused on social, cultural and political transformation as well. They apply a socio-technical systems/multi-level perspective to this work, suggesting six “domains of transformation” representing “discrete spheres of activity within which agroecology (a ‘niche’ in MLP terms) and the dominant regime come into conflict” (page 41) . The six domains are: rights and access to nature, knowledge and culture, systems of economic exchange, networks, equity, and discourse.

They go on to explore six distinct effects power and governance can have at multiple scales in terms of enabling or disabling these agroecological transformations.

Interventions that undermine agroecology include those which:

1. Suppress it by actively repressing and criminalizing it, and/or
2. Co-opt agroecology by supporting it only as an equivalent to the dominant regime.

Interventions that maintain the status quo enable co-existence by:

3. Containing agroecology as elements of the existing dominant STS regime, ignoring alternatives, and/or
4. Shielding agroecology from regime dynamics so it is less threatened by the existing regime.

Agroecological transformations of agrifood systems are enabled by processes which:

5. Support and nurture agroecology to develop on its own terms, and
6. Release agroecology from its disabling context by dismantling elements of the dominant regime and values, and anchoring the values, norms, and practices of agroecology within and between territories, and at different scales.

As part of an effort to better understand how global agrifood systems might be transformed to better align with the seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), a panel of 23 experts from across the globe was recently convened by Cornell University's Atkinson Center for Sustainability. They produced a report (Barrett, 2020) which focused on a particular set of goals referred to as HERS (Healthy, Equitable, Resilient, Sustainable), an acronym used to also emphasize the importance of SDG 5: Gender Equality. Though by no means as radical in their recommendations as Anderson and his co-authors (perhaps due in part to the experts affiliation to established institutions representing existing “socio-technical regimes”), the report does emphasize the need for a holistic socio-technical “bundling” approach to any solution, and that such solutions must be context appropriate. Yet much of the implicit emphasis seems to be focused on bundling as a way to facilitate “technology uptake” from mainstream sources of expertise (like Cornell) rather than enabling true niche innovation and knowledge co-creation within communities and amongst practitioners themselves. But the importance of the latter is recognized, in terms of expressing a commitment to participatory dialogue and coordinated action.

To the last point above, the Cornell Nature Sustainability report emphasizes the importance of: engaging and empowering a broad range of stakeholders; shared, decentralized governance; and the need for collaborative platforms and larger “ecosystems of structures and institutions” for desired transformations to occur, as well as the enabling role digital tools can play in those processes. The report also highlights the “grave threats” continued concentrations of power present to beneficial innovations, whether by governments, corporations, or civil society organizations.

References

(Titles hyperlink to respective citation entry for this group library)

Anderson, C. R., Bruil, J., Chappell, M. J., Kiss, C., & Pimbert, M. P. (2021). Agroecology Now!: Transformations Towards More Just and Sustainable Food Systems. Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61315-0

Barrett, C. B., Benton, T. G., Fanzo, J., Herrero, M. T., Nelson, R., Bageant, E., Buckler, E., Cooper, K. A., Culotta, I., Fan, S., Gandhi, R., James, S., Kahn, M., Lawson-Lartego, L., Liu, J., Marshall, Q., Mason-D’Croz, D., Mathys, A., Mathys, C., … Wood, S. (2020). Socio-technical Innovation Bundles for Agri-food Systems Transformation, Report of the International Expert Panel on Innovations to Build Sustainable, Equitable, Inclusive Food Value Chains. Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability and Springer Nature. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/110864

El Bilali, H. (2019). The Multi-Level Perspective in Research on Sustainability Transitions in Agriculture and Food Systems: A Systematic Review. Agriculture, 9(4), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9040074

Geels, F. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, 187–201. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009

>My next Reader Response Post 3: Multi-Stakeholder Socio-Technical Enterprises