Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-16 (section)

=== 16.3.4 Emerging Policy Perspectives on Systemic Transformations ===

<div id="h2-11-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Because of the multiple market, government, system, and other failures that are associated with the energy system, a range of policy interventions are usually required to enable the development and introduction of new technologies in the market ( [[#Jaffe--2005|Jaffe et al. 2005]] ; [[#Bürer--2009|Bürer and Wüstenhagen 2009]] ; [[#Negro--2012|Negro et al. 2012]] ; [[#Twomey--2012|Twomey 2012]] ; [[#Veugelers--2012|Veugelers 2012]] ; [[#Weber--2012|Weber and Rohracher 2012]] ) used in what is termed as ‘policy mixes’ ( [[#Rogge--2016|Rogge and Reichardt 2016]] ; [[#Edmondson--2019|Edmondson et al. 2019]] , 2020; [[#Rogge--2020|Rogge et al. 2020]] ). Empirical research shows that, in the energy and environment space, when new technologies were developed and introduced in the market, it was usually at least partly as a result of a range of policies that shaped the socio-technical system ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Bunn--2014|Bunn et al. 2014]] ; [[#Bergek--2015|Bergek et al. 2015]] ; [[#Rogge--2016|Rogge and Reichardt 2016]] ; [[#Nemet--2019|Nemet 2019]] ) ''.'' An example of this systemic and dynamic nature of policies is the 70-year innovation journey of solar photovoltaic (PV), covering multiple countries, which is reviewed in Box 16.4.

There are many definitions of policy mixes from various disciplines ( [[#Rogge--2017|Rogge et al. 2017]] ), including environmental economics ( [[#Lehmann--2012|Lehmann 2012]] ), policy studies ( [[#Kern--2009|Kern and Howlett 2009]] ) and innovation studies. Generally speaking, a policy mix can be characterised by a combination of building blocks, namely elements, processes and characteristics, which can be specified using different dimensions ( [[#Rogge--2016|Rogge and Reichardt 2016]] ). Elements include: (i) the policy strategy with its objectives and principal plans; (ii) the mix of policy instruments; and (iii) instrument design. The content of these elements is the result of policy processes. Both elements and processes can be described by their characteristics in terms of the consistency of the elements, the coherence of the processes, and the credibility and comprehensiveness of the policy mix in different policy, governance, geography and temporal context ( [[#Rogge--2016|Rogge and Reichardt 2016]] ). Other aspects in the evaluation of policy mixes include framework conditions, the type of policy instrument and the lower level of policy granularity, namely design elements or design features ( [[#del%20Río--2014|del Río 2014]] ; [[#del%20Río--2017|del Río and Cerdá 2017]] ). In addition, many have argued for the need to craft policies that affect different actors in the transition, some supporting and some ‘destabilising’ ( [[#Geels--2002|Geels 2002]] ; [[#Kivimaa--2016|Kivimaa and Kern 2016]] ).

Learning from the innovation systems literature, some of the recent policy focus is not only directed on innovation policies that can optimise the innovation system to improve economic competitiveness and growth, but also policies that can induce strategic directionality and guide processes of transformative changes towards desired societal objectives ( [[#Mitcham--2003|Mitcham 2003]] ; [[#Steneck--2006|Steneck 2006]] ). Therefore, the aim is to connect innovation policy with societal challenges and transformative changes through engagement with a variety of actors and ideas and incorporating equity, nowadays often referred to as a ‘just transition’ ( [[#Newell--2013|Newell and Mulvaney 2013]] ; [[#Swilling--2016|Swilling et al. 2016]] ; [[#Heffron--2018|Heffron and McCauley 2018]] ; [[#Jasanoff--2018|Jasanoff 2018]] ) (Chapters 1 and 17). This new policy paradigm is opening up a new discursive space, shaping policy outcomes, and giving rise to the emerging idea of transformative innovation policy ( [[#Fagerberg--2018|Fagerberg 2018]] ; [[#Diercks--2019|Diercks et al. 2019]] ).

Transformative innovation policy has a broader coverage of the innovation process with a much wider participation of actors, activities and modes of innovation. It is often expressed as socio-technical transitions ( [[#Elzen--2004|Elzen et al. 2004]] ; [[#Turnheim--2020|Turnheim and Sovacool 2020]] ) or societal transformations ( [[#Scoones--2015|Scoones 2015]] ; [[#Roberts--2018|Roberts et al. 2018]] ). Transformative innovation policy encompasses different ideas and concepts that aim to address the societal challenges involving a variety of discussions, including social innovation ( [[#Mulgan--2012|Mulgan 2012]] ), complex adaptive systems ( [[#Gunderson--2002|Gunderson and Holling 2002]] ), eco-innovation ( [[#Kemp--2011|Kemp 2011]] ) and a framework for responsible innovation ( [[#Stilgoe--2013|Stilgoe et al. 2013]] ), value-sensitive design ( [[#Friedman--2019|Friedman and Hendry 2019]] ) and social-technical integration ( [[#Fisher--2006|Fisher et al. 2006]] ).

<div id="Box 16.4 | Sources of Cost Reductions in Solar Photovoltaics" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="box-16.4-sources-of-cost-reductions-in-solar-photovoltaics"></span>