20.1 Introduction to Coalitions in Transitions Research
Sustainability transitions can be understood as the transformation of socio-technical systems towards the sustainable provision of societal functions (see the introduction of the book). Socio-technical systems are held together by formal and informal rules, also called institutions. These rules include shared beliefs and values, routines, laws, policies, institutionalised practices and capabilities (Fuenfschilling & Truffer, Reference Fuenfschilling and Truffer2014; Geels, Reference Geels2004). For sustainability transitions to materialise, the formal and informal rules of socio-technical systems need to change. In democratic societies, individuals acting alone rarely have the power needed to bring about institutional change that can eventually lead to system-level change. Rather, individuals need to collaborate and coordinate their actions, often in the form of coalitions, to collectively change and shape these rules. For example, Smith, Stirling und Berkhout (Reference Smith, Stirling and Berkhout2005, 1492) state that: ‘system-level change is, by definition, enacted through the coordination and steering of many actors and resources’. In sustainability transition studies, we define coalitions as groups of actors who share the same goal and coordinate strategies and actions over time to shape the socio-technical systems they operate in. As a result of these coalition-driven actions, selection environments are created in which sustainable innovations can thrive, and unsustainable socio-technical configurations are destabilised and phased out.
The concept of coalitions is often used in transition theory to represent coordination and steering efforts. Diverse empirical examples of coalitions advocating for change can be found throughout the sustainability transitions literature, including those related to the deployment of renewable electricity technologies in Germany (Geels et al., Reference Geels, Kern, Fuchs, Hinderer, Kungl and Mylan2016; Jacobsson & Bergek, Reference Jacobsson and Bergek2004; Jacobsson & Lauber, Reference Jacobsson and Lauber2006; Lauber & Mez, Reference Lauber and Mez2004; Negro & Hekkert, Reference Negro and Hekkert2008); the deployment of renewable electricity technology in Sweden and the Netherlands (Ulmanen, Verbong & Raven, Reference Ulmanen, Verbong and Raven2009); hydrogen in Germany (Löhr, Markard & Ohlendorf, Reference Löhr, Markard and Ohlendorf2024); Swiss energy policy (Markard, Suter & Ingold, Reference Markard, Suter and Ingold2016); the green transition in Finland (Haukkala (Reference Haukkala2018); with a focus on European energy transitions (Lindberg & Kammermann, Reference Lindberg and Kammermann2021); and with a more conceptual lens Roberts et al. (Reference Roberts and Geels2018) and Hess (Reference Hess2019b). In these contributions, coordination is often described as taking place in niche-support coalitions that collectively pressure regime actors to change institutions, thereby adapting the selection environment to favour niche innovations.
Although the concept of coalitions is frequently used in sustainability transitions, it is often applied in various ways and is not well conceptualised. To improve the conceptualisation of coalitions and their role in sustainability transitions research, the goals of this chapter are to:
define coalitions and related concepts (Section 20.2),
show how coalitions have been used in sustainability transitions studies (Section 20.3),
introduce theoretical strands that use different types of coalition concepts and discuss how they can be applied to sustainability transitions (Section 20.4) and
highlight valuable avenues for future coalition-related research (Section 20.5).
20.2 Defining Coalitions and Adjacent Collective Action Concepts
The terminology used for coalitions and adjacent concepts is inconsistent and researchers both in the sustainability transitions field and in related social science fields (e.g. sociology, political science and organisational studies) describe similar topics with different terms. The term ‘collective action’ is used here and in the background literature as an umbrella category for political action beyond the individual level with a shared goal or goals for change (Diani & Bison, Reference Diani and Bison2004). Hence, although the focus of this chapter is on coalitions, we also define related concepts, such as social networks, alliances and social movements, to delineate their distinct boundaries and differences.
We suggest using these in the following sense:
Social Network: A social network is a dynamic, interconnected system of individuals, groups, organisations, or other entities that share relationships, values, or interests. These social actors (nodes) are linked by ties (edges) that define their interactions, collaborations and dynamics (McLevey, Scott & Carrington, Reference McLevey, Scott and Carrington2024). Network nodes can also include non-actor entities, such as ideas, frames, or events. The ties can be formal or informal and direct or indirect and for actors, they involve various forms of interaction, such as communication, exchange of resources, or mutual support. The nature of these ties shapes the network’s structure, which influences the flow of information, the distribution of power and the overall dynamics of the network changes.
Alliance: An alliance is understood here as an agreement between two or more actors with a common goal. In the context of politics, an alliance often refers to a formal relationship between government units (such as countries that form a league or confederation) or between political parties that form an alliance prior to elections. The term ‘alliance’ can also refer to companies that have a formal relationship, such as two airlines that coordinate and share routes (Oxford English Dictionary).
Coalition: The term ‘coalition’ is sometimes used synonymously with ‘alliance’; however, the term ‘coalition’ is understood here as a broader concept. In general, a coalition involves different types of actors who share a goal (e.g. beliefs in the Advocacy Coalition Framework) and have some coordination of strategy (Weible & Ingold, Reference Weible and Ingold2018). Coalition action may also involve multiple episodes or events over time. Coalitions can be ephemeral and short-lived or become more established (Weible, Ingold, Nohrstedt, Henry & Jenkins‐Smith, Reference Weible, Ingold, Nohrstedt, Henry and Jenkins-Smith2020). In politics, a common use of the term occurs when two or more political parties form a coalition government. In contrast in sustainability transitions studies, the main coalitions are those engaged in the governance of socio-technical systems. These coalitions can be in favour of or in opposition to efforts that support niche configurations or the phase-out of unsustainable configurations. Like social movements, coalitions emerge from diverse conditions, including institutional opportunities, mobilisation capacity and resources and political conflicts and grievances (M. Fischer, Reference Fischer2015; van Dyke & Amos, Reference Van Dyke and Amos2017).
Social Movement: The term ‘social movement’ often refers to a long-term mobilisation of actors across diverse campaigns that challenge authorities and seek change. Examples include the environmentalist, anti- or decolonial, feminist, labour and conservative movements (van Dyke & Amos, Reference Van Dyke and Amos2017). The understanding of a social movement often includes the idea of protest or extra-institutional action, such as the following: ‘A social movement is a collective, organised, sustained and non-institutional challenge to authorities, powerholders, or cultural beliefs and practices’ (Goodwin & Jasper, Reference Goodwin and Jasper2003). Depending on the temporal and spatial scale on which an analysis is based, social movements can comprise multiple coalitions over diverse campaigns. Whereas the term ‘coalition’ is generally used in the context of state-oriented action with an institutional repertoire of action, the term ‘social movement’ can have non-state actors as targets and can include extra-institutional repertoires of action, such as street protest and civil disobedience (Della Porta & Diani, Reference Della Porta and Diani2017).
20.3 The Role of Coalitions in Established Transition Research Frameworks
Coalitions have been described and used in several of the main sustainability transitions frameworks. In the following section, four major sustainability transitions frameworks will be briefly introduced, with an emphasis on how, if at all, they conceptualise coalitions. These frameworks were selected as foundational approaches in transition studies (Markard, Raven & Truffer, Reference Markard, Raven and Truffer2012). When introducing the use of coalitions in these four key frameworks, we will also briefly discuss coalition frameworks developed outside the Sustainability Transitions Research field, such as the Advocacy Coalitions Framework and the Discourse Coalition approach. These frameworks will be explored in greater detail in Section 20.4, alongside the concepts of Policy Networks and Strategic Action Fields.
20.3.1 Multi-level Perspective
The Multi-level perspective (MLP) is a processual framework that suggests that socio-technical transitions come about ‘through alignment of trajectories and ongoing processes with and between three analytical levels’ (Geels, Reference Geels2020): the niche, the regime and the landscape (see Chapter 2). Original versions of the MLP referred to conflicts between actors and also mentioned coalitions of different types. For example, ‘broad political coalitions’ (Geels, Reference Geels2002, 1260) were seen as one of several heterogeneous factors that populate the socio-technical landscapes and influence socio-technical change. Although coalitions are mentioned in the MLP, detailed conceptualisations of coalitions have not been developed so far in the MLP literature. When references are made, these in most cases point to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Geels, Reference Geels2019; Haukkala, Reference Haukkala2018; Lindberg & Kammermann, Reference Lindberg and Kammermann2021; Roberts & Geels, Reference Roberts and Geels2019) or the Discourse Coalitions concept (Geels, Reference Geels2014b; Roberts & Geels, Reference Roberts and Geels2018; Späth & Rohracher, Reference Späth and Rohracher2010). Nevertheless, although coalitions continue to be sparsely mentioned in MLP contributions and are not conceptualised in further detail, in more recent work, ‘actors and social networks’ have been included as a fundamental category in each phase of a transition (Geels & Turnheim, Reference Geels and Turnheim2022). This development could suggest that actors and social networks in general and potentially coalitions as a type of network will receive more scholarly attention in the future of MLP research.
20.3.2 Technological System Perspectives
Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) perspectives analyse ‘the emergence of novel technologies and the institutional and organisational changes that have to go hand in hand with technology development’ (Markard et al., Reference Markard, Raven and Truffer2012, 959). Scholars who investigate the emergence of novel technologies through TIS focus on understanding the building up of a TIS (looking at TIS structures) and the core processes in these systems (called functions) (Bergek, Jacobsson, Carlsson, Lindmark & Rickne, Reference Bergek, Jacobsson, Carlsson, Lindmark and Rickne2008; Hekkert, Suurs, Negro, Kuhlmann & Smits, Reference Hekkert, Suurs, Negro, Kuhlmann and Smits2007). Although politics and collective action are not at the core of the analytical scope of TIS, networks and coalitions are, together with actors and institutions, key conceptual elements of a TIS (Bergek et al., Reference Bergek, Hekkert, Jacobsson, Markard, Sandén and Truffer2015; B. Carlsson & Stankiewicz, Reference Carlsson, Stankiewicz and Carlsson1995; Markard & Truffer, Reference Markard and Truffer2008). For example, Bergek et al. (Reference Bergek, Hekkert, Jacobsson, Markard, Sandén and Truffer2015, S. 61) suggest that ‘TIS actors forge political networks or coalitions that work towards policy changes in favour of the focal technology.’ Likewise, Hekkert et al. (Reference Hekkert, Suurs, Negro, Kuhlmann and Smits2007, S. 425) suggest that advocacy coalitions ‘can function as a catalyst’ in innovation systems because they ‘put a new technology on the agenda, lobby for resources and favourable tax regimes and by doing so create legitimacy for a new technological trajectory.’ These conceptualisations also appear in empirical papers, such as TIS studies on solar PV (Dewald & Truffer, Reference Dewald and Truffer2011) or renewable energy more broadly (Jacobsson & Bergek, Reference Jacobsson and Bergek2004). Although innovation systems scholars acknowledge coalitions as drivers of change that can accelerate innovation systems development, similarly to the MLP, the TIS approach does not specifically conceptualise coalitions and it instead points to the Advocacy Coalition Framework as an example of how to proceed with the analysis of coalitions in innovation systems studies e.g. Hekkert et al., 2007; Bergek et al., 2008).
20.3.3 Strategic Niche Management
Strategic niche management (SNM) has been defined as the deliberate ‘creation, development and controlled phase-out of protected spaces for the development and use of promising technologies by means of experimentation’ (Kemp, Schot & Hoogma, Reference Kemp, Schot and Hoogma1998, S. 186). These protected spaces are called niches and are often intentionally established. In these niches, radical innovations are shielded, nurtured and empowered before they can compete with other established technologies (Smith & Raven, Reference Smith and Raven2012) (see also Chapter 5). In the SNM literature, coalitions are mentioned, but as in the MLP and TIS literature, they are not central in the analytical framework. Among the few SNM researchers who examine coalition building are Pesch, Vernay, van Bueren und Pandis Iverot (Reference Pesch, Vernay, van Bueren and Pandis Iverot2017, S. 1938), who suggest that niche entrepreneurs adopt strategies of ‘creating and maintaining a coalition of actors’ to form niches. Concerning who may build coalitions to support niches, Caniëls und Romijn (Reference Caniëls and Romijn2008, S. 258) suggest the concept of niche champions: as they have ‘informal organisational power and influence that help him/her to build effective support coalitions.’ As with other foundational transitions frameworks, empirical research on coalitions in the SNM substrand is very limited. One example is by Raven (Reference Raven, Verbong and Loorbach2012) who showcased empirical cases on sustainable housing in the UK and biofuels in the Netherlands.
20.3.4 Transition Management
Transition management (TM) is a method of governance that is designed to promote and accelerate sustainability transitions (Loorbach, Reference Loorbach2010; Rotmans, Kemp & van Asselt, Reference Rotmans, Kemp and van Asselt2001). It involves collaborative processes where participants engage in envisioning, learning and experimenting. The approach encourages the incorporation of diverse perspectives and methods within a ‘transition arena’. Here, stakeholders collaboratively identify issues in the existing system and create common visions and objectives. For an advanced introduction, please see Chapter 3 in this book. In contrast with SNM, the concept of coalitions is quite central in TM. In fact, ‘the very idea behind TM is to create new coalitions, partnerships and newly formed networks that allow for building up continuous pressure on the political and market arena to safeguard the long-term orientation and goals of the transition process’ (Loorbach, Frantzeskaki & Huffenreuter, Reference Loorbach, Frantzeskaki and Huffenreuter2015, S. 56). TM suggests that coalition building is a core task in the previously mentioned transitions arena. Here, the coalition ‘identifies and reframes a persistent problem; articulates and commits to a vision of sustainable development and to a shared agenda for moving in this direction’ (Frantzeskaki, Loorbach & Meadowcroft, Reference Frantzeskaki, Loorbach and Meadowcroft2012, S. 28). Building coalitions is understood as a tactical act that incorporates ‘specific organisations and actors that share a similar sense of urgency and are willing and able to further the ambition of realising a (desirable) transition’ (Jhagroe & Loorbach, Reference Jhagroe and Loorbach2015, S. 67). Although coalitions are conceptualised as important elements in TM processes, their composition, strategies and dynamics have not yet been conceptualised in greater detail.
This brief review of four transitions research frameworks shows that coalitions are influential, though their importance varies. They are most emphasised in the TM approach and less so in the others. Despite this, coalitions remain underdeveloped conceptually. Some authors reference the Advocacy Coalitions Framework or Discourse Coalition approach, but a comprehensive understanding of coalitions in transitions is lacking.
20.4 Introduction of Four Theoretical Strands to Understanding Coalitions
In this section, we will introduce four theoretical strands, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Discourse Coalitions, Policy Networks and Strategic Action Fields, that use different types of coalition concepts. We will discuss how these can be harnessed for sustainability transitions studies. The number of concepts could easily be expanded. However, we have chosen those that most closely deal with coalitions. For a general discussion of policy process theories in particular and how to utilise them for sustainability transitions research, see also Kern und Rogge (Reference Kern and Rogge2018).Footnote 1
20.4.1 Advocacy Coalition Framework
The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is an actor-centred policy process theory for analysing policy change and stability (P.A. Sabatier, Reference Sabatier1998; Weible et al., Reference Weible, Ingold, Nohrstedt, Henry and Jenkins-Smith2020). Its key conceptual elements are advocacy coalitions, which share a common set of beliefs (shared values and problem perceptions) and participate in a policy subsystem (P. A. Sabatier, Reference Sabatier1998). A policy subsystem is defined by a functional focus and geographical scope (P. A. Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, Reference Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith1993). Belief systems consist of deep core beliefs, policy core beliefs and secondary aspects. Subsystem-specific policy core beliefs can change over a few years and are used to identify coalitions (Weible & Ingold, Reference Weible and Ingold2018).
Advocacy coalitions include individual and collective actors, such as interest groups, policymakers, or researchers, who share policy core beliefs and coordinate within the same subsystem (P. A. Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, Reference Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith1993; P. A. Sabatier, Reference Sabatier1998). Typically, two or more advocacy coalitions compete over policy issues and try to influence policy through their beliefs. The dominant coalition can translate its beliefs into policy.
In contrast to transition studies, the ACF distinguishes different coalition types. The theoretical ideal is an adversarial coalition (no cross-coalition coordination) (Weible et al., Reference Weible, Ingold, Nohrstedt, Henry and Jenkins-Smith2020). Other types include disconnected coalitions, coalitions of convenience, or dominant coalitions without opposition. Cross-coalition coordination leads to cooperative coalitions (Weible et al., Reference Weible, Ingold, Nohrstedt, Henry and Jenkins-Smith2020).
The ACF and transition research both analyse change and pursue a system perspective (socio-technical system versus policy subsystem). The key difference is a policy focus in the ACF and a broader understanding of change in multiple dimensions in transition studies (see Markard et al., Reference Markard, Suter and Ingold2016). A key element of transition studies, technological change, has been linked with the ACF by several authors (Jacobsson & Lauber, Reference Jacobsson and Lauber2006; Markard et al., Reference Markard, Suter and Ingold2016; Schmid, Sewerin & Schmidt, Reference Schmid, Sewerin and Schmidt2020). Research mostly focused on energy-related advocacy coalitions (Haukkala, Reference Haukkala2018; Lindberg & Kammermann, Reference Lindberg and Kammermann2021; Markard et al., Reference Markard, Suter and Ingold2016). Conceptual contributions integrating the ACF with transition studies include Markard et al. (Reference Markard, Suter and Ingold2016), who compare key concepts – for example, policy versus systemic change. Löhr et al. (Reference Löhr, Markard and Ohlendorf2024) conceptualise policy core beliefs in a nascent hydrogen policy subsystem, linking conceptual ideas from the ACF’s policy perspective with socio-technical ones in transition studies. Gomel und Rogge (Reference Gomel and Rogge2020) bridge the ACF with policy mixes in Argentinian energy policy. Data for ACF analysis includes surveys, interviews, content analysis of policy documents, and media analysis to identify belief and policy changes (see Table 20.1).
| Understanding of knowledge acquisition | Scope of analysis | Source of actor cohesion | Type of actors in coalitions | Typical data and methods used | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advocacy Coalition Framework | Positivist tradition | Advocacy coalitions in policy sub-systems | Shared policy core beliefs | Individual and collective actors, typically policy actors | Interviews, documents (articles, position papers), network data, qualitative and quantitative analysis, cluster analysis |
| Discourse Coalitions | Constructivist tradition | Discourse coalitions in a political realm | Shared understanding of a phenomenon that is constructed via discourse | Individuals and organisations | Interviews, documents (media articles, policy and government documents) |
| Policy Networks | Both dialectical approaches, based on a critical realist epistemology, as well as, for example, rational choice approaches based on positivist epistemology | Policy networks in policy domains | Shared set policy preferences and ideology | Only organisations (individuals are only part of coalitions as agents of organisations) | Questionnaire data, policy documents, individual case studies, graphical presentations |
| Strategic Action Fields | Both positivist and constructivist | Includes non-state fields of action and extra-institutional tactics | Coordination of action toward a shared goal or goals | Individuals and organisations | Interviews, frame analysis, network data, quantitative models, comparative analysis, case studies |
20.4.2 Discourse Coalitions
The Discourse Coalition approach examines how problems are framed through discourse, which Hajer defines as ‘a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts and categorisations (…) through which meaning is given to physical and social realities’ (Hajer, Reference Hajer and Hajer1997, p 264). It suggests that the manner in which a situation is understood varies and that the way an issues is discussed determines whether it is perceived as a problem (Hajer, Reference Hajer1995). These different ways of understanding and constructing a phenomenon can lead to different perceptions of whether the phenomenon in question is a political problem and hence if action is needed. Like the ACF, the Discourse Coalitions approach suggests that, in any policy field, there are different coalitions competing for policy influence, of which one is normally dominant. What binds coalitions together is a shared understanding of phenomena and the discourses, storylines and narratives that evolve around them, which eventually leads to political action and practices (Hajer, Reference Hajer1995). The DA approach includes individuals (Bulkeley, Reference Bulkeley2000) and organisations (Di Gregorio, Reference Di Gregorio2012) as coalition members. Data collection for DA studies can use sources from public hearings (Vieira, Reference Vieira2019), electronic and print news media (Fergie, Leifeld, Hawkins & Hilton, Reference Fergie, Leifeld, Hawkins and Hilton2019), interviews (Ortega Alvarado, Sutcliffe, Berker & Pettersen, Reference Ortega Alvarado, Sutcliffe, Berker and Pettersen2021) and social media (Muller, Reference Muller2015).
Discourse coalitions have repeatedly been used to refine the conceptual understanding of socio-technical transitions. For example, in a community energy case study in Austria, Späth und Rohracher (Reference Späth and Rohracher2012, S. 461) suggested that ‘local and non-local discourses’ can provide ‘specific opportunities for the legitimisation and entrenchment of alternative socio-technical configurations.’ Geels (Reference Geels2014b) also used discourse coalitions to conceptualise how regime incumbents can resist challenges by social movements and Rosenbloom, Berton und Meadowcroft (Reference Rosenbloom, Berton and Meadowcroft2016) developed a discursive approach to examine how actors use language to shape the legitimacy of socio-technical innovations. In addition to these conceptual contributions, the volume of empirical studies has steadily increased over the past 15 years. Contributions include, for example, Kern (Reference Kern2011), who explained policy divergence regarding a more sustainable energy system in the UK and the Netherlands; Hess (Reference Hess2019a), who analysed the actor relationships, the composition of coalitions and the choices of frames in an electricity case study in California; Lowes, Woodman und Speirs (Reference Lowes, Woodman and Speirs2020), who documented an incumbent discourse coalition resisting electric heating in the UK; and Markard, Rinscheid und Widdel (Reference Markard, Rinscheid and Widdel2021), who analysed discourse networks concurrent with the progression of the German phase-out of coal.
20.4.3 Policy Network Analysis
Policy Network Analysis (PNA) identifies key actors in policy-making to (1) describe and explain the structure of their interactions and (2) predict collective policy decisions and outcomes (Kenis & Schneider, Reference Kenis, Schneider, Marin and Mayntz1991; Knoke, Reference Knoke, Scott and Carrington2011). The primary unit of analysis is the network of ties connecting members (usually organisations) of policy networks. Individuals act on behalf of their organisations, representing organisational interests (Knoke & Kostiuchenko, Reference Knoke, Kostiuchenko, Victor, Montgomery and Lubell2017). PNA examines the roles, interactions and influences of actors in the policy-making arena, using both qualitative (Ahrens, Reference Ahrens2018) and quantitative approaches (Shearer, Dion & Lavis, Reference Shearer, Dion and Lavis2014), recognising that these elements are socially constructed and evolve based on interactions.
In PNA, lobbying coalitions are understood as one type of interorganisational relation that may help to explain a policy domain’s social structure (Knoke, Reference Knoke2001, Reference Knoke, Scott and Carrington2011). These coalitions ‘form around a specific policy event, a pending decision on a proposed legislative bill, regulatory order, or court case ruling’ (Knoke, Reference Knoke, Scott and Carrington2011, S. 212). They are held together by shared ideology (Henry, Reference Henry2011), policy preferences and the belief that pooling resources increases the likelihood of a successful outcome (Knoke, Reference Knoke, Scott and Carrington2011). Coalitions are conceptualised as short-lived activities that aim to affect the outcome of a specific, narrowly defined policy event. After public officials render a decision, the coalition partners routinely disband to pursue their separate agenda items To analyse policy networks, researchers gather and analyse empirical data which depending on the analyst can, for example, be interpreted based on positivist epistemology (Fawcett & Daugbjerg, Reference Fawcett and Daugbjerg2012, S. 200) or based on a critical realist epistemology (Bevir & Richards, Reference Bevir and Richards2009; Fawcett & Daugbjerg, Reference Fawcett and Daugbjerg2012). Data that is used for PNA include survey and questionnaire results (Robins, Lewis & Wang, Reference Robins, Lewis and Wang2012), policy documents (McGregor, Reference McGregor2004), individual case studies (McGregor, Reference McGregor2004) and graphical presentations (Brandes, Kenis & Wagner, Reference Brandes, Kenis and Wagner2003).
While the conceptualisation of coalitions is well developed in PNA (see Knoke Reference Knoke, Scott and Carrington2011) there are also some concerns regarding the explanatory value of the framework (Rhodes, Reference Rhodes1990) and some have suggested that the theoretical grounding in analysing policy networks has not kept pace with the growing sophistication of its data analysis methods (Adam & Kriesi, Reference Adam, Kriesi and Sabatier2007; L. Carlsson, Reference Carlsson2000; Raab & Kenis, Reference Raab, Kenis, Fischer, Miller and Sidney2007; Siegel, Reference Siegel2007).
In sustainability transitions, PNA is rarely applied, with only three peer-reviewed studies so far. These examine regime-destabilising tendencies in the US and Netherlands (Normann, Reference Normann2019), carbon capture and storage policy in Norway (Normann, Reference Normann2017) and the low-carbon transition in the US (Jiusto & McCauley, Reference Jiusto and McCauley2010).
20.4.4 Strategic Action Fields
The strategic action field perspective is one of several perspectives that utilise the concept of fields, and it has become the dominant field perspective in sustainability transition studies. Examples of field perspectives include the analysis of community wind energy in Denmark (Mey & Diesendorf, Reference Mey and Diesendorf2018), grassroots governance of electricity in Germany (Fuchs & Hinderer, Reference Fuchs and Hinderer2016), and distribution systems in the United States (Lenhart, Chan, Forsberg, Grimley & Wilson, Reference Lenhart, Chan, Forsberg, Grimley and Wilson2020). Other studies and theoretical concepts are reviewed in Kungl und Hess (Reference Kungl and Hess2021).
Strategic action field theory draws on Bourdieu’s analysis of fields (Bourdieu & Wacquant, Reference Bourdieu and Wacquant1992) and brings it together with concepts from institutional and social movement theory (Fligstein & McAdam, Reference Fligstein and McAdam2011). Fields are demarcated social spaces that have some degree of autonomy; actors with varying levels of capital or resources that are utilised as part of the actors’ strategy; relations of cooperation and competition between the actors; rules that govern those relationships; and unique products such as policies, regulations, or goods and services. For example, a government legislature or regulatory agency can be treated as a field that generates rules that govern transitions. However, a field approach views social change and transitions from a more diverse perspective that often considers interactions across political fields (legislative, regulatory and judicial), at multiple levels of spatial scale and between political fields and industrial and civil society fields.
For sustainability transitions research, a field perspective tends to shift attention from the niche–regime relationship of technological systems to the relations between coalitions of challengers and incumbents. Empirical studies often move beyond a dyadic, intra-industry conflict with associated policy coalitions to multiple coalitions that can include societal change conflicts over justice and democracy in addition to policies that govern socio-technical system change (Hess, Reference Hess2018). Because actors can operate across multiple fields, a field perspective can show how actors in one field with relatively lower power can leverage countervailing power from other fields to their favour.
There are several other contributions to the broader conversation on coalitions in sustainability transition studies. These contributions include the analysis of and different types of power and strategic action, the construction of new fields and definitions of field rules (see Kungl & Hess, Reference Kungl and Hess2021). Data used for strategic action fields analysis include quantitative modelling and network data, frame analysis and more qualitative approaches such as frame analysis, controlled comparisons and case studies (see also Table 20.1).
20.4.5 Comparison
The introduction of the four approaches shows that two – specifically, the ACF and the DC framework or approach – centre on coalitions as key players capable of collectively influencing and shaping their (institutional) environment. Conversely, the PNA approach views coalitions more peripherally, as merely one form of interorganisational relationship. In contrast, the strategic actions field perceives actors and interactions as organised not by different levels of structuration, where challengers interact with incumbents as described in the MLP (Geels, Reference Geels2004), but rather as occurring across various spatial scales with evolving coalitions competing for dominance in a range of political and industrial fields.
When examining the potential of the four approaches to complement sustainability transitions research, it becomes evident that they are quite different in terms of their ontologies and epistemologies in comparison with the foundational frameworks of sustainability transitions theory (see Table 20.1, see also F. Fischer (Reference Fischer, Stehr and Grundmann2005) for a comparison between discourse and advocacy coalitions). Furthermore, the four approaches have been employed with varying degrees of intensity to inform sustainability transitions research. The AFC and DC approaches have been adopted more than the others over the past decade to deepen the understanding of transitions. Meanwhile, the SAF perspective has only recently begun to gain some recognition, albeit limited. Although these three frameworks are gradually becoming more prominent, the adoption of PNA by transition scholars remains minimal. This could be due to its theoretical basis, which is described as relatively underdeveloped and may offer restricted conceptual contributions to transition studies.
In Section 20.5, avenues for future research on coalitions in transitions research in general and in regard to the presented four frameworks will be presented and discussed.
20.5 Future Research Needs and Conclusion
Here, we identify and discuss several key areas for future research related to coalitions based on the previous findings. These areas are categorised into three themes: linking coalition theories to transition theory, characteristics and internal dynamics of coalitions and the activities and strategies of coalitions to accelerate socio-technical change.
20.5.1 Linking Coalitions Theories to Transition Theory
As discussed in Section 20.4, the four coalition approaches were developed with different goals and epistemic traditions. For example, the ACF follows a positivist policy process tradition, while the DC approach is rooted in social constructionism, embracing the complexity of environmental policy (Hajer & Versteeg, Reference Gomel and Rogge2005). These differences may make them less directly compatible with transitions frameworks like the MLP, which draws from evolutionary economics, innovation sociology and institutional theory (Köhler et al., Reference Köhler, Geels, Kern, Markard, Onsongo and Wieczorek2019). Some efforts have been made to combine the ACF with transitions theory (Gomel & Rogge, Reference Gomel and Rogge2020; Löhr et al., Reference Löhr, Markard and Ohlendorf2024; Markard et al., Reference Markard, Suter and Ingold2016) and SAF theory has been applied to sustainability transitions (Kungl & Hess, Reference Kungl and Hess2021). However, further conceptual work is needed to integrate policy analysis frameworks with transitions theory where appropriate. For instance, PNA has been underused in transition studies but could improve our understanding of policy-making arenas in socio-technical systems. Additionally, the discussion of coalitions in transition theory in Section 20.3 was limited to the four main perspectives. Other emerging transition theories, like policy mixes (Kern, Rogge & Howlett, Reference Kern, Rogge and Howlett2019), intermediaries (Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo & Klerkx, Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019), the triple embeddedness framework (Geels, Reference Geels2014a) and geography-focused approaches such as global innovation systems (Binz & Truffer, Reference Binz and Truffer2017), were not covered. Future research could benefit from cross-fertilisation between coalition concepts and these newer transition theories.
20.5.2 Characteristics and Internal Dynamics of Coalitions
A more comprehensive understanding of coalition composition and its evolution over time is needed, particularly regarding how members are bound together in transition settings. Are these ties based on shared beliefs, as in the ACF, shared discourse as in DC, mutual interests seen in policy networks, or other factors? Examining the organisational structures and power dynamics within coalitions could reveal what frameworks foster robust or ephemeral coalitions, offering valuable insights for socio-technical transition strategies.
There is also a need to explore how coalition composition impacts internal dynamics, including how member diversity influences interactions and decision-making. Understanding how coalition members coordinate, negotiate goals and allocate resources is key. Additionally, investigating the factors that contribute to coalition longevity and internal stability could shed light on what drives their rise or decline and their effects on the niches or regime configurations they support.
20.5.3 Activities and Strategies of Coalitions
There is a need to better understand the strategies coalitions use to shape their institutional environment and how these evolve over time, particularly with the maturity of supported configurations and the level of contestation in systems. Future research could explore how coalitions agree on visions, develop socio-technical imaginaries and manage expectations with policymakers and other stakeholders. It would also be useful to examine how they engage in discursive struggles, framing problems and solutions to resonate with their constituents.
Additionally, it’s important to understand interactions among coalitions within the same systems and across system boundaries. This could shed light on when interactions are collaborative, indifferent, or competitive and how these dynamics unfold. Exploring how coalition activities differ when major policy decisions are imminent or when governments have committed to action would also be valuable.
As coalition and transition research advances, it may increasingly address outcomes beyond policy conflict, such as institutional and technological change, impacts on multiple systems, private-sector strategy, governance and broader shifts in culture and public opinion.
20.5.4 Conclusion
This chapter has shown that the role of coalitions is consistently highlighted in the socio-technical transitions literature. Their role is quite encompassing and includes shaping the selection environments for innovations as well as changing institutions and policies that help in the phasing out of outdated regime configurations (Geels & Schot, Reference Geels and Schot2007; Geels & Turnheim, Reference Geels and Turnheim2022; Kern & Rogge, Reference Kern and Rogge2018; Markard et al., Reference Markard, Suter and Ingold2016; Rosenbloom et al., Reference Rosenbloom, Berton and Meadowcroft2016; Smith et al., Reference Siegel2005). Hence, the question posed in the title if they are only interested in changing policy can be answered with a ‘no’ as coalitions in sustainability transitions research are not solely conceptualised to aim at policy change but also at broader institutional change.
The understanding of coalitions has gradually increased in the past decade in response to calls for a deeper understanding of policy change and collective action (e.g. Farla, Markard, Raven and Coenen (Reference Farla, Markard, Raven and Coenen2012); Köhler et al. (Reference Köhler, Geels, Kern, Markard, Onsongo and Wieczorek2019)). However, collective action, and especially the role of coalitions, has so far been under-conceptualised in sustainability transitions research, and the role of coalitions in transition processes is yet to be comprehensively understood. This is surprising, as sustainability transitions can be understood as ‘an inherently political enterprise’ (Rosenbloom et al., Reference Rosenbloom, Berton and Meadowcroft2016, S. 1276) in which coalitions as bodies of collective action are likely key to socio-technical change. In an effort to enrich theory and empirical research in this area, this chapter has delineated coalitions and related concepts of collective action. Furthermore, it has scrutinised the application of coalitions in existing sustainability transitions studies and introduced four theoretical perspectives, primarily derived from policy research, that may be harnessed to develop the conceptualisation of coalitions in transitions research. The chapter also concludes with several promising research directions, which, if pursued, are anticipated to deepen the understanding of coalitions and amplify their significance in the study of sustainability transitions.
Open access