EU - SPRI Conference

The emergence of new technologies is characterised by a broad array of inherent uncertainties. This holds all the more for technologies which bear the potential to trigger radical innovation. These technologies typically pose particular technological challenges and they allow new ways of application, which often require the adaptation of regulatory frameworks and affect established business models. In addition, new constellations of innovation actors have to be set up. In the face of these uncertainties, actors involved in innovation and governance processes have to rely on expectations rather than on robust knowledge for developing strategies and policies. Especially collective expectations, i.e. expectations that are part of a widely acknowledged social repertoire, have been shown to be particularly influential (Borup et al., 2006; Konrad, 2006; Raven et al., 2008). Collective expectations act as provisional, and in that sense tentative, but forceful assumptions on the future potential and requirements of an emerging technology, and thus constitute a core element in the governance of innovation processes (Borup et al., 2006). The important role of expectations is also acknowledged by approaches dedicated to governing radical innovation processes, such as transition management and strategic niche management (Geels et al., 2008; Raven et al., 2008; Sondeijker et al., 2006). However, collective expectations often develop quite dynamically, up to sudden changes, due to developments within a technology field, as well as external developments in related sectors or competing technologies (Borup et al., 2006; Geels and Raven, 2006; Konrad, 2006; van Lente, 1993). The highly dynamic evolvement of expectations creates challenges for related governance processes, which have to deal with the dynamics and tentativeness of expectations, either ex-post when expectations have changed, or ex-ante, when possible future changes in expectations are taken into account in the set-up of governance measures. Thus, governance itself may become as de-facto tentative when flexibility is the outcome, or in a purposeful manner, when flexibility is actively sought. Against this background, this article investigates how expectations on fuel cell technology developed in the German policy arena, taking into account expectations on the technology and its applications, as well as on further influential developments, e.g. related sectoral dynamics. Moreover we consider how these expectation dynamics affected the governance of the field and how governance processes and structures dealt with the uncertainty and changes in expectations. We focus on Germany, one of the highly active countries in fuel cell innovation, in the time period 1994 to 2011. In this period fuel cell expectations were changing considerably: At the turn of the millennium many expected fuel cell technology to become widely implemented within a few years from then, for propulsion of vehicles, as combined heat and power systems at the household level (micro CHP), or as highly efficient replacements of conventional power stations. A number of companies announced the market introduction of fuel cells within the first half of the 2000s, and policy programmes to support the EU-SPRI Conference 2014 Booklet of Abstract 53 technology were initiated around the globe. However, fuel cell technology did not live up to these optimistic expectations and the hype around fuel cell technology turned into disappointment. In the second half of the 2000s, expectations about battery electric vehicles became increasingly optimistic, putting additional pressure on fuel cell expectations. In Germany, actors with stakes in fuel cell technology managed to translate fuel cell expectations into stable support structures, which were maintained though adjusted – in times when battery electric vehicles were generally expected to be more promising. This is in contrast to other countries, e.g. the Netherlands or the US, where fuel cell technology rather disappeared on the policy agenda, or was at risk to receive considerably less funding after the hype (Bakker and Budde, 2010). Conceptually, this paper draws on two bodies of literature: the sociology of expectations (Borup et al., 2006) and the multi-level perspective of transition studies (Geels, 2010; Geels, 2002). Both literatures have shown the importance to consider different levels of, on the one hand, expectations and, on the other, ‘real-world’ processes, to understand the complex dynamics of innovation, up to broader sectoral transition processes (Geels, 2002; van Lente, 1993). Building on this, we develop a conceptual framework for the analysis of interrelated visions and expectations – networks of expectations. Based on this framework, we analyze how visions and expectations related to different levels, such as a technology field, sectoral developments or broader societal trends, developed and influenced each other over time in the German policy discourse on fuel cell technology. Empirically we draw on a discourse analysis of German policy documents from 1994 to 2011, complemented by expert interviews. Thus, the main research question of this paper is: To what extent can the dynamics of fuel cell expectations and visions in the German policy discourse be explained by changes in the broader network of expectations and how have these dynamics affected policy support for fuel cell technology? With this paper we want to (a) contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics of expectations, which takes into account the complex interactions – or co-evolution – of collective expectations, and (b) we want to explore how policy responds to these dynamics in more or less tentative manners. Our analysis showed that collective expectations about fuel cell technology itself were an important reference point in the policy discourse. However, it became also clear that these expectations alone were not sufficient to trigger substantial policy measures, as exemplified by the fact that the hype around mobile fuel cell applications did not result in immediate policy action. Apparently, only once and as far as expectations about fuel cell technology linked up with visions and expectations at the regime and landscape level, they were able to facilitate the setup of supportive policy measures. In addition, but not surprisingly, linking to regime and landscape level expectations was only supportive, if these were widely shared and assessed positively across the policy spectrum, or the governing parties at the time. The types of links and interactions we observed within dynamic networks of expectations reflect the broad variety reported in the literature of strategic niche management and transition studies for ‘real-world’ processes. We identified more or less supportive links between niche and regime expectations, supportive linkages between niche and landscape expectations, and competing and complementary linkages between expectations EU-SPRI Conference 2014 Booklet of Abstract 54 concerning different niche technologies. Niche expectations were related to multiple regime expectations and visions, both in the form of expectations referring to multiple systems a niche may relate to, such as visions regarding the electricity and the mobility system. Furthermore niche expectations were related as well to competing visions about the future of a particular system, for instance visions about a hydrogen economy based on renewables or nuclear energy, or a mobility system based on fuel cell versus battery-electric vehicles or – in the case of battery electric vehicles to an overarching vision of an electrification of transport. These linkages are not stable, but change over time. A further dynamic element is introduced due to changes in the assessment of linked visions, as in the case of the vision of a hydrogen economy, or the assessment of battery-electric vehicles. Dynamics do not only include reshufflings of the network of expectations. In addition, we observed a successive articulation of expectations – mainly in the later periods , largely by way of dedicated expectation-building measures within working groups, which were initiated by actors of the “fuel cell community”, but joined by policy actors and became increasingly institutionalized. Thinking beyond this paper, our framework could be further developed and inform a reflexive approach of dealing with the dynamics within networks of expectations. The multilevel analysis of expectations may serve to identify weak, latent or potential future relations and interactions of visions and expectations, which may affect future discourses and ultimately governance processes. Thus this paper emphasizes the importance of taking into account expectations and visions related to all three levels linking up to emerging discussions among experts in the German fuel cell community, that higher level expectations were not taken into account sufficiently in previous expectations work. Thus an analysis based on the insights of this paper could eventually contribute to a reflexive governance approach, which does not only respond ex post to shifts in expectations and expectation networks, but tries to anticipate to some extent possible future dynamics and reshufflings of expectations, for instance as a result of changes in related expectations or due to the intensification of so far weak or latent links. Literature: Bakker, S., Budde, B. 2010. Technological Hype and Disappointment: Lessons from the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Case. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 24/6, 549-563 Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., Van Lente, H., 2006. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18, 285-298. Geels, F., 2010. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy 39, 495-510. Geels, F., Hekkert, M., Jacobsson, S., 2008. The dynamics of sustainable innovation journeys. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20/5, 521-536. Geels, F., Raven, R., 2006. Non-linearity and Expectations in Niche-Development Trajectories: Ups and Downs in Dutch Biogas Development (1973–2003). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18, 375-392. Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31, 1257. Konrad, K., 2006. The Social Dynamics of Expectations: The Interaction of Collective and Actor-Specific Expectations on Electronic Commerce and Interactive Television. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18, 429-444. Raven, R.P.J.M., Heiskanen, E., Lovio, R., Hodson, M., Brohmann, B., 2008. The Contribution EU-SPRI Conference 2014 Booklet of Abstract 55 of Local Experiments and Negotiation Processes to Field-Level Learning in Emerging (Niche) Technologies: Meta-Analysis of 27 New Energy Projects in Europe. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 28, 464-477. Sondeijker, S., Geurts, J., Rotmans, J., Tukker, A., 2006. Imaging sustainability: the added value of transition scenarios in transition management. Foresight The journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy 8, 15-30. van Lente, H., 1993. Promising Technology: The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological Developments, Faculteit Wijsbegeerte en Maatschappijwetenschappen. Universiteit