Scholarlink

<p>We argue that visions of transformation, or governed transition, need additional conceptual framings to discern to what extent steering and policy integration are possible towards processes we can call ‘transition’. We identify a series of dilemmas of transformation which each unique transition must navigate through by means of governance. Such navigational effort can contextualize goals and strategies by making design choices and limitations for the transition process visible. We distinguish further between two types of real dilemmas: structurally impossible combinations of features and discursively constructed dilemmas, which often build on false polarities of concepts and approaches. We illustrate our analysis with examples from four ongoing and/or attempted transitions towards a bioeconomy. It is argued that what applies to the analysis of compatibility and incompatibility, at the level of structural choices for institutional design, applies to the analysis of individual choices, where recognition of trade-offs, false friends, and polarities is equally helpful, yet framed by the key decisions in institutional design.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Transition as the navigation of dilemmas: observing trade-offs and recognizing contradictions on the path to a bioeconomy

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月4日

查看全文
  • Kristof Van Assche,
  • Jan Börner,
  • Thomas Dietz,
  • Janosch Förster,
  • Sascha Stark

摘要

We argue that visions of transformation, or governed transition, need additional conceptual framings to discern to what extent steering and policy integration are possible towards processes we can call ‘transition’. We identify a series of dilemmas of transformation which each unique transition must navigate through by means of governance. Such navigational effort can contextualize goals and strategies by making design choices and limitations for the transition process visible. We distinguish further between two types of real dilemmas: structurally impossible combinations of features and discursively constructed dilemmas, which often build on false polarities of concepts and approaches. We illustrate our analysis with examples from four ongoing and/or attempted transitions towards a bioeconomy. It is argued that what applies to the analysis of compatibility and incompatibility, at the level of structural choices for institutional design, applies to the analysis of individual choices, where recognition of trade-offs, false friends, and polarities is equally helpful, yet framed by the key decisions in institutional design.