Reflexive Governance for Sustainable
Development
René Kemp
(based on J-P Voss and R. Kemp)
Presentation at ISDRC TCSR Symposium
June 6-8, 2005 in Helsinki
Special session on Transdisciplinary Case Study Research
for Sustainable Development
Everything gets better except
for life itself
Reflexive modernisation (Beck):
society being busy with selfcreated problems
Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development
Dealing with self-created problems
Choice of
goals and
solutions
Governance
system
Traditional governance :
always reactive
Unintended
consequences
Sustainable development as
the “wholly grail”– A trojan horse?
Not a trojan horse


Sustainable development as a new way of
problem framing in which there is a
reflecting on wants, causal links with
attention to long-term system effects
The governance system associated with
this is reflexive governance
Reflexive governance


Is about the organisation (modulation) of
recursive feedback relations between
distributed steering activities
Reflexivity as self-confrontation (in which
governance sees itself to be part of the
dynamics to be governed)
Strategies for Reflexive governance
Aspect of
Problem
treatment
System analysis
Goal formulation
Strategy
implementation
Specific
problem
features
Co-evolution of
heterogenous
elements
across multiple
scales (society,
technology,
ecology)
Uncertainty and
ingnorance
about
transformation
dynamics and
effects of
intervention
Path dependency of
structural
change , high
societal impact
Sustainability
goals involve
value trade -offs,
are endogenous
to transformation
Capacities to
influence
transformation
are distributed
among actors
Strategy
requirement
Transdisciplinary
knowledge
production
Experiments
and adaptivity
of strategies
and
institutions
Anticipation of
long -term
systemic
effects of
measures
Iterative
participatory
goal
formulation
Interactive
strategy
development
ENDOGENOUS
CONSTRAINTS:
CULTURAL
FRAMES, SOCIAL
INSTITUTIONS,
PHYSICAL
STRUCTURES AND
TOOLS
SYSTEM STRUCTURING
AND RESTRUCTURING
Anticipation
PROCESS
STRUCTURING
on
Anticipation
ACTORS, their
knowledge, power and
authority relations, role
relationships, and control
over resources, including
physical structures and
tools
Transdiscip linary
knowledge
production
EXOGENOUS
FACTORS
Truly exogenous factors
Material conditions,
external agents, larger
socio-cultural context
which are given
Adapted from adapted from
Burns, Flam 1987
Particiatory goal
formulation
Concrete DECISIONS AND
ACTIONS including those which
concern maintaining or changing
cultural frames, rule systems, group
formation, and socialization of
actors
ACTOR
STRUCTURING:
GROUP
FORMATION
SOCIALIZATION
Anticipation
Interactive
strategy
development
Strategic
Experiments
INTENDED
AND
UNINTENDED
EFFECTS IN
MATERIAL,
SOCIAL AND
CULTURAL
WORLDS
Transition management
…. is a deliberate effort to work towards a transition in
a stepwise, adaptive manner, utilising dynamics and
visions
… a “journey to the South”
in which different visions and routes are explored:
system innovation and optimisation
Transition Management: bifocal
instead of myopic
Political
margins for
change
Existing policy process: short-term goals (myopic)
State of
development
of solutions
Transition management: oriented towards longterm sustainability goals and visions, iterative and
reflexive (bifocal)
Societal
goals
Sustainability
visions
The cyclical, iterative nature of
transition management
Organizing a multiactor network
Developing
sustainability
visions and
transitionagendas
Evaluating,
monitoring
and learning
Mobilizing actors and
executing projects and
experiments
Mathematically transition management =
current policies + long-term vision + vertical
and horizontal coordination of policies +
portfolio-management + process management.
... is bottom-up and top-down, using strategic
experiments and control policies
Areas of interest in the Energy
transition
Biomass
New Gas
Policy
Renewal
Eff. Energy
Chains
Sustainable
Rijnmond
2050
2020
Biomass 20-40% of primary energy supply
10-15% in power prod.
15-20% in traffic
‘Vision’
‘Strategic goals’
A. Gasification
B. Pyrolysis
C. Biofuels
2à3%
2003
: experiments
: R&D
‘Transition
Paths’
No choice is made as to what the
energy system should be





Different routes are investigated
Decisions are made in an interative
way
Support is temporary
Each option has to proof its worth
Technology choices are made at the
decentralized level
All five strategies are part of
transition management





Integrated knowledge production on problems and their
dynamics, including different scientific disciplines and practice
perspectives
Adaptive strategies and strategic experiments to actively deal
with uncertainty
Systematic anticipation of long-term and indirect effects e.g.
through explorative foresight exercises
Iterative, participatory formulation of governance objectives,
taking account of diverse and changing social values
Interactive strategy development by actors with various sources
of influence
Efficacy paradox
The efficacy paradox refers to
the contradicting requirements
of opening-up and closing-down
(of problem space, solution
space and governance) in social
problem-solving processes.
 Strategies for opening up
need to be complemented with
appropriate strategies to reduce
complexity and achieve stable
strategies
Conclusion



Transdisciplinary problem-solving helps to
work towards SD
It fits with reflexive governance
But for transitions in functional systems
much more is needed (in the way of some
kind of transition management).