The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions
Open accessAbstract
Recently, there has been an increasing interest in policy mixes in innovation studies. While it has long been acknowledged that the stimulation of innovation and technological change involves different types of policy instruments, how such instruments form policy mixes has only recently become of interest. We argue that an area in which policy mixes are particularly important is the field of sustainability transitions. Transitions imply not only the development of disruptive innovations but also of policies aiming for wider change in socio-technical systems. We propose that ideally policy mixes for transitions include elements of ‘creative destruction’, involving both policies aiming for the ‘creation’ of new and for ‘destabilising’ the old. We develop a novel analytical framework including the two policy mix dimensions (‘creation’ and ‘destruction’) by broadening the technological innovation system functions approach, and specifically by expanding the concept of ‘motors of innovation’ to ‘motors of creative destruction’. We test this framework by analysing ‘low energy’ policy mixes in Finland and the UK. We find that both countries have diverse policy mixes to support energy efficiency and reduce energy demand with instruments to cover all functions on the creation side. Despite the demonstrated need for such policies, unsurprisingly, destabilising functions are addressed by fewer policies, but there are empirical examples of such policies in both countries. The concept of ‘motors of creative destruction’ is introduced to expand innovation and technology policy debates to go beyond policy mixes consisting of technology push and demand pull instruments, and to consider a wider range of policy instruments combined in a suitable mix which may contribute to sustainability transitions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Geels, F. W. (2002) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8 · Cited by 7,275
Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003 · Cited by 5,245
Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis
Pierson, P. (2004) · doi:10.1515/9781400841080 · Cited by 4,957
From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems
Geels, F. W. (2004) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015 · Cited by 4,098
Unruh, G. C. (2000) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/s0301-4215(00)00070-7 · Cited by 3,304
Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective
Geels, F. W. (2010) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022 · Cited by 1,718
Environmental political economy, technological transitions and the state
Meadowcroft, J. (2005) · New Political Economy · doi:10.1080/13563460500344419 · Cited by 179
The role of markets and policies in delivering innovation for climate change mitigation
Newell, R. G. (2010) · Oxford Review of Economic Policy · doi:10.1093/oxrep/grq009 · Cited by 157
Cited by
An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., et al. (2019) · Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions · doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 · Cited by 2,800
Self-citationPolicy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis
Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004 · Cited by 1,524
Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change
Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340 · Cited by 1,401
Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization
Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., & Sorrell, S. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aao3760 · Cited by 1,017
Geels, F. W. (2019) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009 · Cited by 949
Metadata
- Authors
- Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F.
- Venue
- Research Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-02
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 205-217
- ISSN
- 0048-7333 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2129862350
- Cited by
- 1,181
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 38.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008
- The paper
- Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.