Presenting a Framework for Describing the Technological Transitions Based on the Multilevel Analysis Approach (Case Study: The Transition to Renewable Energy in Iran)

Document Type : Original Article


1 PhD student Scientific Policy Research Center, Tehran, Iran

2 Faculty of national Research Institute for Science Policy, Tehran, Iran

3 Expert, Strategic Assessment and Control, MAPNA Group, Tehran, Iran

4 Faculty member of research institute for science and technology


It is necessary to take new and acceptable policies to develop renewable energy sources and finitude of fossil fuels in Iran. To do so, it is vital to identify and address technological changes. Also, to take advantage from concepts of technological transition literature, we understood that by changing only the technology it is not possible to change technological transition, but it needs some changes in society, acts, industry and economy. The synchronously analysis of all these changes in a social context is called technological transition. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the type of changes before any policymaking in order to take adequate policies for making transition path. Typology of changes is called paths of technological transition. In current research authors tried to identify and investigate the paths of technological transition by assessing the factors for allocating paths. The results indicate that in 4 stages of renewable energy transition in Iran, the transition path in stage 2 and stage 3 are in type of layering while in stage 4 it is changing from layering type to replacing technological path.


Main Subjects



Avelino, F. 2011. Power in transition: empowering discourses on sustainability transitions. Repub.Eur.Nl.
Avelino, F., & Rotmans, J. 2009. Power in transition: an interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(4), pp. 543–569.
Avelino, F., & Wittmayer, J. M. 2017. Shifting Power Relations in Sustainability Transitions : A Multi-actor Perspective Shifting Power Relations in Sustainability Transitions: A Multi-actor Perspective, 7200(August).
Berkhout, F., Smith, A., & Stirling, A. 2004. Socio-technological regimes and transition contexts. System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 48–75.
Bhr, H. 2010. The politics of means and ends: policy instruments in the European Union. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Geels, F. W. 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8), 1257–1274.
Geels, F. W. 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6–7), pp. 897–920.
Geels, F. W. 2014. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: Introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), pp. 21–40.
Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Wassermann, S. 2016. The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: a reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Research Policy, 45(4), pp. 896–913.
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. 2010. The dynamics of transitions: a socio-technical perspective. (2017).
Mahoney, J., & Rueschemeyer, D. 2003. Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. 2009. Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge University Press.
Mousavi Doorcheh, S. M., Ghanei Rad, M. A., Karimian, H. & Zenozi Zadeh, H. 2018. Presenting a Framework for Describing the Technological Transitions Based on the Multilevel Analysis Approach (Case Study: The Transition to Renewable Energy in Iran), behboodmodiriat, 12(40), pp. 141-176.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American Economic Review, 72(1), pp. 114–132.
Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. 2013. Towards a more comprehensive policy mix conceptualization for environmental technological change: a literature synthesis. Working paper sustainability and innovation.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), pp. 15–31.
Schot, J., & Rip, A. 1997. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2), pp. 251–268.
Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. 2005. The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions, 34, 1491–1510.
Suarez, F. F., & Oliva, R. 2005. Environmental change and organizational transformation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(6), pp. 1017–1041.
Thelen, K. 2001. How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative-Historical Analysis (Manuscript, November 2001). Comparative-Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Verbong, G. P. J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Pathways for sustainability transitions in the electricity sector: Multi-level analysis and empirical illustration. In Infrastructure Systems and Services: Building Networks for a Brighter Future (INFRA), 2008 First International Conference on (pp. 1–5). IEEE.
Verbong, G. P. J., & Geels, F. W. 2010. Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), pp. 1214–1221.
Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., van Steenbergen, F., & Loorbach, D. 2017. Actor roles in transition: Insights from sociological perspectives. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24, pp. 45–56. (2018).
Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study research design and methods third edition. Applied Social Research Methods Series.