Whither policy innovation? Mapping conceptual engagement with public policy in energy transitions research

Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102632
Available online 7 May 2022
2214-6296/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Review
Whither policy innovation? Mapping conceptual engagement with public
policy in energy transitions research
N. Goyal a,*
, A. Taeihagh b
, M. Howlett c
a
Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands
b
National University of Singapore, Singapore
c
Simon Fraser University, Canada
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Bibliometric review
Computational text analysis
Energy transition
Policy diffusion
Policy innovation
Policy success
A B S T R A C T
A transition to sustainable energy will require not only technological diffusion and behavioral change, but also
policy innovation. While research on energy transitions has generated an extensive literature, the extent to which
it has used the policy innovation perspective – entailing policy entrepreneurship or invention, policy diffusion,
and policy success – remains unclear. This study analyzes over 8000 publications on energy transitions through a
bibliometric review and computational text analysis to create an overview of the scholarship, map conceptual
engagement with public policy, and identify the use of the policy innovation lens in the literature. We find that:
(i) though the importance of public policy is frequently highlighted in the research, the public policy itself is
analyzed only occasionally; (ii) studies focusing on public policy have primarily engaged with the concepts of
policy mixes, policy change, and policy process; and (iii) the notions of policy entrepreneurship or invention,
policy diffusion, and policy success are hardly employed to understand the sources, speed, spread, or successes of
energy transitions. We conclude that the value of the policy innovation lens for energy transitions research re
mains untapped and propose avenues for scholars to harness this potential.
1. Introduction
The research on energy transitions delves into qualitative, quanti
tative, or geospatial shifts in how energy is sourced, delivered, or uti
lized [1–6]. There is broad consensus in the literature that public policy
plays a key role in initiating, accelerating, or supporting these activities
and, thereby, energy transitions [7–9]. To better understand the re
lationships of the policy context, policy process, policy design, and en
ergy transitions, scholars have appealed for closer synthesis among the
literature on energy research, public policy, and sustainability transi
tions. Some avenues proposed for this include the use of concepts from
policy studies in energy research [10], the adaptation of policy process
theories to analyze the politics of transitions [11], the development of a
strand of interdisciplinary research on policy mixes through integration
of innovation studies and policy studies [12], the application of the
research on policy transfer to study internationalization of socio-
technical transitions [13], and the engagement with the notion of pol
icy feedback for co-evolutionary assessment of policy mixes and socio-
technical transitions [14].
Policy innovations that address “the root causes of… problems
instead of the symptoms” will be key for sustainability transitions,
generally, and energy transitions, specifically [15]. Policy innovation
can be viewed as a multidimensional concept involving three perspec
tives: policy invention, policy diffusion, and policy success [16]. Policy
invention entails a radical change in policy objectives or instruments
leading to a new policy [17], and policy diffusion denotes the (potential)
spread of policy from one jurisdiction to other interdependent jurisdic
tions [18]. Meanwhile, the notion of policy success recognizes the
diverse outcomes of public policy and emphasizes the need to analyze
these through ex-post evaluation [19,20].
Taken together, in a polycentric context – such as that of energy
transitions – these can create a virtuous cycle of experimentation and
learning that helps catalyze systemic transformation. The study of policy
innovation is, therefore, useful for understanding the relationship(s)
between public policy and energy transitions and for creating knowl
edge on accelerating energy transitions [21–23]. This is not to say that
this lens should replace other approaches to studying public policy in
energy transitions – or even that innovation is always desirable [24] –
but only that its use has high positive and normative relevance for the
scholarly community and merits further attention. While existing studies
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nihit.goyal@tudelft.nl (N. Goyal).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Research & Social Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102632
Received 24 November 2021; Received in revised form 20 April 2022; Accepted 20 April 2022

2
have reviewed conceptual engagement with public policy in energy
transitions research broadly [10–12,25], whether, to what extent, and
how the literature on energy transitions has used the policy innovation
lens specifically remains unclear.
The objective of this study is to shed light on policy innovation in
energy transitions research. We pose the question: “(to what extent)
does energy transitions research address policy innovation?” Here, we
use the term energy transitions research broadly to refer to publications
that mention the phrase ‘energy transition’ or the term ‘energy’ in the
context of socio-technical transitions in their title, abstract, or keywords.
To answer the question, we collect relevant bibliometric data of over
8000 publications on energy transitions and analyze it using a combi
nation of topic modelling, term frequency analysis, term co-occurrence
analysis, and a manual review. While this approach does not lend itself
to an in-depth conceptual or narrative synthesis, it allows us to obtain a
bird's eye view of the literature and systematically quantify the preva
lence of themes, the mention of terms, and the co-occurrence of concepts
in a large body of research. We contribute to the literature by: (i)
identifying and ranking the key themes in energy transitions research;
(ii) mapping the conceptual engagement with public policy in this
scholarship; and (iii) proposing avenues for future research to harness,
and further develop, the policy innovation lens.
This article is structured as follows. In Section 2, we elaborate on the
notion of policy innovation and emphasize its relevance for energy
transitions research. Subsequently, we present the methods of data
collection and analysis (Section 3). Section 4 presents the results of the
study, including an overview of our dataset to set the context, the key
themes in energy transitions research, and conceptual engagement with
public policy in this scholarship. Finally, we conclude with an inter
pretation of the findings, a discussion of their implications, and avenues
for future research (Section 5).
2. Why policy innovation?
In policy studies, public policy has been conceived as a combination
of objectives and instruments, with each of these comprising a nested
hierarchy of abstract (high-level), operationalizable (program-level),
and on-the-ground (specific) elements [26]. Building on this, Howlett
[17] proposes that change(s) at the abstract or operationalizable level in
either policy objectives or policy instruments constitutes policy inno
vation. While this conceptualization makes a distinction between in
cremental, minor, or routine change on the one hand and fundamental,
major, or rare change on the other hand, it adopts an output-centric view
of policy innovation, i.e., of policy as a product. Further, it does not
clarify whether such a change must be new or whether reversion to the
old also constitutes policy innovation. In a more encompassing
conceptualization, Jordan and Huitema [24] define policy innovation as
“the process and/or product of seeking to develop new and/or widely
adopted, and/or impactful policies, when existing ones are perceived to
be under-performing.”
Jordan and Huitema [16] suggest that the policy innovation lens
comprises three perspectives on public policy: invention, diffusion, and
success (see also [23]). The policy invention perspective focuses on the
adoption of new policies (or new objectives or tools therein), often
through experimentation and learning. Meanwhile, the policy diffusion
perspective delves into processes that contribute to, or hinder, the
spread of policies to other jurisdictions and resulting changes in the
policy. The policy success perspective focuses on examining policy
outcomes through careful ex-post evaluation. These perspectives have
received attention – albeit, often in isolation – in the field of policy
studies.
Policy invention – more generally, policy change – has been analyzed
in the literature on the policy process. Although the policy process is
characterized in several – even incompatible – ways, scholars broadly
agree that it is a multi-actor, multi-dimensional process occurring over a
long time-period [27,28]. The most widely known ‘theories’ of the
policy process include the policy stages heuristic [29–31], the multiple
streams framework [32], the institutional analysis and development
framework [33], the advocacy coalition framework [34,35], punctuated
equilibrium theory [36], policy feedback theory [37], and the narrative
policy framework [38]. These aim to explain both policy stability and
policy change, and usually make a distinction between incremental
change and radical change.
The policy invention perspective is important for explaining and
promoting energy transitions as it can shed light on the characteristics
that lead to the creation of policy alternatives, the adoption of new
policies, and the co-evolution of policy and technology. Illustratively,
Llamosas, Upham [39] use the multiple streams framework to show that
‘regime resistance’ has thwarted efforts to introduce policy innovation
in the energy system in Paraguay. Similarly, Karapin [40] argues that
the veto power of fossil-fuel interests hinders policy innovation at the
federal and the state level in the United States, slowing the energy
transition. Also, Carmon and Fischhendler [41] explain the lack of
stringency in the policy design on renewable energy targets based on the
‘friction’ between bureaucrats and politicians during the policy process.
In assessing a ‘successful’ case, Argyriou [42] demonstrates that a
combination of socioeconomic characteristics, political orientations,
and third-sector entities drive policy innovation in commercial energy
efficiency in Philadelphia.
Jordan and Huitema [23] emphasize the activities of policy entre
preneurs as a potential source of policy invention. Policy entrepre
neurship – defined as “the coupling activities of like-minded individuals
with different skills, knowledge and positions that take place simulta
neously or at different stages in the policy process” [43] – has indeed
been acknowledged as a key source of policy change within nearly every
theoretical lens mentioned above [44–49]. Broadly, the literature of
policy entrepreneurship has recognized it as a collective or institutional
act [50–56] and identified the attributes, strategies, and influence of
policy entrepreneurs in the policy process [57].
The study of policy entrepreneurship in the energy transitions can
help ascertain the resources, strategies, and activities that contribute to
policy invention and its diffusion. Albeit in the case of water policy,
Huitema, Lebel [58] find that policy entrepreneurs contribute to water
transitions, although their degree of influence depends on the institu
tional setting. The authors argue that individuals can play a role in these
processes through idea development, exploitation of windows of op
portunity, venue shopping, coalition building, and network manage
ment. Relatedly, Goyal, Howlett [59] synthesize research on policy
entrepreneurship using the multiple streams framework to delineate six
types of individual or collective entrepreneurs relevant to energy tran
sitions: the problem broker, the policy entrepreneur, the process broker,
the political entrepreneur, the program champion, and the technology
innovator. The authors show how these different types of entrepreneurs
contributed to a policy innovation in the energy-water nexus in India.
The spread of (new) policies to other jurisdictions, too, has been
examined using multiple theories in policy studies. Among others, these
include policy assemblage [60], policy mobility and mutation [61], and
policy translation [62]. While each of these offers unique insights into
the processes by which policies spread – and their influence on policy
design – the notions of policy diffusion [63,64] and policy transfer
[65,66] are arguably the most mainstream. The literature on policy
diffusion has focused mainly on the ‘mechanisms’ that explain patterns
of horizontal diffusion (i.e., at the same level) or vertical diffusion (i.e.,
between hierarchically different levels) [67]. In contrast, the scholarship
on policy transfer has emphasized the role of lesson drawing in this
process [65,68]. Increasingly, scholars have argued for a synthesis of the
research on diffusion and transfer to develop a better understanding of
why and how policies spread [69,70].
The diffusion perspective is essential for energy transitions research
as it can reveal the dynamics that facilitate the scaling up and scaling out
of novel policies. For instance, Zimm [71] analyzes the global diffusion
of policies concerning electric vehicles to find the socioeconomic
N. Goyal et al.

3
characteristics, political factors, and international mechanisms that can
accelerate the transition to electric vehicles. Relatedly, Goyal [72]
synthesizes policy diffusion and policy transfer and conceptualizes both
using the multiple streams framework to explain the slow adoption of
building energy codes in India. At the intersection of research on policy
transfer and sustainability transitions, Pitt and Jones [13] introduce
‘scaling up and scaling out’ as a new mechanism of transfer and identify
the conditions under which it can lead to success. Morton, Wilson [73]
find that household characteristics such as age, education, building type,
and household size influence the subnational ‘diffusion’ of energy effi
ciency assessment in the United Kingdom. Bhamidipati, Haselip [74]
document the process of policy ‘translation’ through which a coherent
policy outcome was achieved in the case of renewable energy in Uganda.
Recently, Heyen, Jacob [75] have argued for closer integration between
the research on policy transfer and sustainability transitions to catalyze
transformative change.
The notion of policy success recognizes that, despite its positive
connotation, invention does not necessarily translate into success on the
ground, and policy outcomes should – therefore – be analyzed carefully
[76]. While the early literature on the topic adopted a rationalist
approach to policy evaluation, subsequent research has advanced a
constructivist approach too [77]. In an attempt to bridge these,
McConnell [20] has defined a policy as successful if “it achieves the
goals that proponents set out to achieve and attracts no criticism of any
significance and/or support is virtually universal” and proposed a heu
ristic to assess success empirically. Such a view of policy success em
phasizes the multidimensional nature of policy effects, spanning the
program (such as the achievement of stated objectives), the process
(such as procedural justice), and the politics of public policy (such as
electoral repercussions) [20,78–82].
A study of policy success can, therefore, help present a nuanced ac
count of the various effects of a policy, distinguish policies that have
desirable outcomes in specific contexts from those that do not, and steer
transitions towards justice and sustainability [83–85]. Illustratively,
through a comparison of coal phase-out in Germany and the United
Kingdom, Brauers, Oei [86] show that policy outcomes are affected by
several actors, such as industries, environmental groups, and the gov
ernment. In the case of the transition from solid fuels in South Africa,
Matinga, Clancy [87] find that symbolic use of policy explained the non-
implementation of the pro-poor energy policy of the South African
government. In another example, Fontaine, Fuentes [88] use the policy
design framework to show that the (intended) lack of congruence within
the policy mix can help actors resisting change and undermine policy
outcomes. Relatedly, in their evaluation of the energy efficiency policy
mix in Finland, Kivimaa, Kangas [89] find that incoherence during
policy implementation decreases effectiveness.
Thus, the perspectives of policy entrepreneurship or invention, pol
icy diffusion, and policy success can shed light on the interplay between
public policy and energy transitions. In the next section, we describe
how we locate and quantify the use of these perspectives – and the policy
innovation lens – within energy transitions research.
3. Methods
We conduct a bibliometric review and computational text analysis
for this study using bibliometric data – i.e., data on authorship, insti
tutional affiliation, publication title, abstract, keywords, cited refer
ences, and so on – collected from the Web of Science database.
As our interest was in capturing the body of work on energy transi
tions – and not only research referring to public policy or policy inno
vation – we searched the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the
publications in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and the Book
Citation Index-Social Sciences and Humanities (BKCI-SSH) for the
following: (electricity OR energy OR power OR renewable OR smartgrid)
AND (MLP OR “multilevel perspective” OR SNM OR “strategic niche
management” OR “technological innovation system*” OR TIS OR
transition). We iteratively revised the query based on a scan of the
resulting dataset in each round. Our final query reflected three key
changes. First, we qualified the presence of the term ‘power’ as it
resulted in numerous articles on geopolitics and international relations
not related to the energy domain. Second, we included a variant of the
term ‘smartgrid’ (‘smart grid’) to incorporate additional literature.
Third, we excluded articles mentioning the term ‘transition’ in another
context not directly relevant to the energy domain.
Consequently, our final search query – executed on July 05, 2021 –
was: (electricity OR energy OR “power generation” OR “power system*”
OR renewable OR smartgrid OR “smart grid*”) AND (MLP OR “multi
level perspective” OR SNM OR “strategic niche management” OR
“technological innovation system*” OR TIS OR transition) NOT (“de
mographic transition*” OR “energy intake” OR “land?cover transition*”
OR “land?use transition*” OR “nutrition transition*” OR “phase transi
tion*”). While this reduced the number of irrelevant articles signifi
cantly, several still remained. We addressed this problem by employing
topic modelling (see below) to identify themes not pertaining to energy
transitions by clustering publications based on their titles and abstracts.
Specifically, we found two themes – the first about health and nutrition
and the second about forestry, land cover, and land use – that were not
relevant to energy transitions. After removing publications for which
one of these was the most prominent theme, our final dataset consisted
of 8442 publications that self-identify as pertaining to energy transitions
or to energy in sustainability transitions (Fig. 1).
To begin with, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to obtain an
overview of our dataset and validate our search strategy. For this, we
used the bibliometrix package [90] in the R programming environment to
examine scientific activity over time, authorship, institutional collabo
ration, and scientific production by country. Subsequently, we used
topic modelling to identify the main themes in energy transitions
research. Topic modelling is an unsupervised machine learning tech
nique for ‘discovering’ latent themes (or topics) in a document collection
based on the distribution of terms, i.e., words or phrases, in the text [91].
Specifically, we used the structural topic model to account for correla
tion among topics, incorporate document-level metadata for topic dis
covery, and implement the analysis in the R programming environment
using the stm package [92]. To select the number of themes for this
analysis – an input to the topic model – we examined models ranging
from 10 to 25 themes using the searchK function in the stm package and
chose the model with 15 themes, based on the held-out likelihood and
semantic coherence of the alternatives.
To prepare the dataset for computational text analysis, we employed
the following procedure. First, we tokenized, annotated, and lemmat
ized the publication text (i.e., titles and abstracts) using the udpipe
package [93]. Second, identified commonly occurring phrases in the text
and, where applicable, replaced sequences of words with phrases to
increase the coherence of the analysis. Third, we removed the parts of
speech that do not contain domain-relevant information – such as con
jugations, determiners, and pronouns – from the text. Also, we removed
terms that lend little discriminating power to our analysis but occur
frequently in the English language or in our dataset (‘stop words’).
Fourth, we implemented stemming, using the SnowballC package [94],
to reduce terms to their root form and further enhance the coherence of
our analysis.
Once our analysis highlighted that policy innovation was not a key
theme in this literature, we examined conceptual engagement with
public policy by counting mentions of ‘policy’ OR ‘polici’, distilling
terms that represent key concepts in policy studies, and investigating
term co-occurrence to understand the context of their use. Our key aim
in this analysis was to map public policy lenses that have been employed
in energy transitions research and answer whether policy innovation
was one among them.
The limitations of this study should, however, be borne in mind
while interpreting the results of these analyses. First, as we searched the
SSCI and the BKCI-SSH in the Web of Science database for identifying
N. Goyal et al.

4
the literature, relevant studies that are not listed in these indices are not
included in our analysis. Second, although a wide variety of policy areas,
problems, and themes are relevant to energy transitions. Our search
strategy focused only on studies that self-identified as pertaining to
energy transitions or to energy in sociotechnical transitions. Conse
quently, relevant studies that did not mention our search terms in their
title, abstract, or keywords are not included in our analysis. Third, while
our reliance on computational text analysis allowed us to analyze a large
dataset, its findings are premised on lexical – rather than semantic –
similarities with the concepts of interest to us. In contrast, manual text
analysis would have enabled more fine-grained analysis, but would have
limited the size of the literature that we could have reviewed. Fourth, we
selected studies to illustrate the themes in the research based not on
their centrality to the field, but on their topic proportion(s), the diversity
of studies within the themes, and our prior knowledge of the theme.
Fifth, we did not validate the findings with other scholars active in en
ergy transitions research or policy studies.
4. Results
4.1. An overview of the dataset
In this sub-section, we present a brief overview of our dataset to show
that our search strategy identified the relevant literature and set the
context for the analysis.
As mentioned earlier, the final dataset consists of 8442 publications
on energy transitions. The earliest publications in this research area –
written in the aftermath of the oil crisis – discussed the impending en
ergy transition, resource scarcity, sustainable energy, and the role of
public policy [95–99]. While research activity was moderate during the
previous century, it witnessed sustained growth after 2005 and has
increased exponentially since 2015 (Fig. 2), possibly indicating a policy-
driven and normative response to the declaration of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and the adoption of the Paris Agreement on
climate change.
As per our dataset, over 18,000 scholars have authored publications
on energy transitions. Of these, approximately 400 have more than five
publications and over a hundred scholars have 10 or more publications
in this area, indicating an active research community. The most pub
lished authors in this dataset include B. K. Sovacool [4,100,101], F.
Krausmann [102,103], B. Q. Lin [104,105], M. P. Hekkert [106,107],
and D. P. van Vuuren [108,109]. Noticeably, among the most prolific
scholars in this field, only D. J. Hess and F. Kern engage actively with
policy studies or political science, while the rest focus on science &
technology studies, philosophy, or other social sciences (Table 1).
Although scholars publishing in this research area represent over
4000 research institutions, approximately only 130 institutions world
wide are mentioned on 25 or more occasions.1
A look at the top in
stitutions in this area – the University of Sussex, Utrecht University, the
University of Leeds, the Delft University of Technology, and the Uni
versity of Oxford – reveals a large European (specifically, British and
Dutch) presence in this field. A co-authorship network among the top 30
institutions shows the presence of three clusters: the first of institutions
Fig. 1. The steps for selecting publications on energy transitions.
0
500
1000
1500
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Fig. 2. The number of publications on energy transitions over time. Publica
tions for the year 2021 are not shown in the figure for consistency.
Table 1
The most prolific authors in energy transitions research based on our dataset.
Author Publications Author Publications
B. K. Sovacool 81 P. Kivimaa 23
F. Krausmann 37 R. Raven 23
B. Q. Lin 32 D. J. Hess 21
M. P. Hekkert 29 F. Kern 21
D. P. van Vuuren 27 J. Markard 21
T. J. Foxon 26 S. Ginrich 20
F. W. Geels 24 M. Martiskainen 20
1
We count multiple authors from an institution or multiple publications by
an author as distinct occurrences.
N. Goyal et al.

5
mainly in the Netherlands and Scandinavia, the second of institutions
primarily in the United Kingdom, and the third of institutions in China
and the United States (Fig. 3). With the exception of China, the only non-
OECD countries among the top 30 in scientific activity are India (19),
Brazil (22), and South Africa (27). This reveals a geographic bias in
scientific activity – and, possibly, focus – in energy transitions research.
4.2. Key themes in energy transitions research
We analyze the topics in the literature to ascertain whether public
policy (and more specifically, policy innovation) is a prominent theme.
A topic model reveals the presence of various analytical approaches and
empirical issues that have been covered in the literature on energy
transitions (Fig. 4).
The most prevalent theme in the dataset is Theme 1 on ‘Socio-tech
nical transition.’ The primarily focus here is the conceptual advance
ment of sustainability transitions and its empirical application to climate
change or the energy system. Illustratively, studies in this theme delve
into the role of agency [110], community energy [111], community
leadership in grassroots innovation [112], ecologies of participation
[113], the geographies of transitions [114,115], intermediaries [116],
and the role of non-traditional actors [117].
The challenge of transitioning away from high‑carbon energy, spe
cifically, is deliberated on in more detail in Theme 2 on ‘Fossil fuel de
pendency’, wherein scholars focus on topics such as energy security
[118], the future of coal, oil, and shale gas [119–122], lesson drawing
from historical transitions [123,124], and pathways for emerging
economies [125]. Relatedly, ‘Climate change mitigation’ is discussed
predominantly in Theme 5. Studies in this theme analyze topics con
cerning decarbonization alternatives [126–128], national climate
ambition [129–132], net-zero energy system [133], and the role of
public policy [134].
Adopting a more nexus approach, Theme 3 on ‘Economy and energy’
highlights the complex relationship among the economy, energy
production and use, and the environment, often in the case of China
[135–141]. Studies in this theme also explore the effects of technological
progress on energy use [142]. Relatedly, studies in Theme 4 on
‘Resource flows’ conduct lifecycle analyses relevant to energy produc
tion or use [143], examine the food-energy-water nexus [144,145], and
advance scholarship on measuring resource efficiency [146,147]. This
theme has also witnessed research activity on bioeconomy [148] and
circular economy [149–151].
Some themes shed light on the relationship between energy transi
tions and society. Theme 7 on ‘Industry and innovation’, for example,
discusses the role of business in influencing technology or service
innovation [152–158] as well as the influence of the energy transition on
corporates [159]. Meanwhile, Theme 13 on ‘Behavior and consumption’
engages with the demand for energy. Illustratively, studies in this theme
delve into topics surrounding participation in community energy ini
tiatives [160], electric vehicles [161–164], smart grids [165,166], social
acceptance, and willingness to pay [167]. Similar to Theme 13 in its
focus on behavior, Theme 14 delves into ‘Energy access’ at the house
hold level, with studies examining energy inequity and poverty
[168–170], fuelwood use [171], household preferences for energy
[172,173], willingness to pay [174], and the effect of access on social
development [175,176].
Several themes are concerned with the role of renewable energy in
energy transitions. Theme 9 on ‘Renewable energy integration’ delves
into the potential [177], sociotechnical feasibility [178–181], and
benefits of high renewable energy penetration [182], as well as the
regulatory and technology alternatives for realizing it [183–185]. While
studies in Theme 9 focus more on solar energy, Theme 11 concentrates
predominantly on the role of ‘Wind energy’ by studying the diffusion of
clean energy [107,186–188], project implementation and social accep
tance [189,190], and energy planning and policy at the local, national,
or supranational level [191–193]. The use of the technological innova
tion system perspective is also prominent in this theme. Relatedly,
Theme 15 on ‘Financing and investment’ is concerned with realizing
univ sussex
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
univ sus
u
u
un
ni
un
ni
i
i
i
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
uni
i
i
u
u
u
u
univ suss
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
univ sus
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
univ utrecht
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
univ utr
un
u
u
u
un
n
n
n
niv
univ utr
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
univ utr
u
u
u
u
u
u
univ leeds
univ l
u
u
un
univ le
univ le
delft univ technol
delf
del
del
del
el
elft univ
ft
f
f
lft univ
f
l
l
lft univ
f
lf
lf
lf
univ oxford
u
univ o
u
univ ox
u
univ ox
u
u
tsinghua univ
singhu
singhu
singhu
univ calif berkeley
v cali
v calif
v calif
lund univ
lund
lund
lund
univ manchester
niv man
niv man
niv man
cardiff univ
cardi
cardif
cardif
imperial coll london
ndon
on
rial
rial
rial
swiss fed inst technol
nst tech
hnol
fed i
fed i
fed i
univ cambridge
mbridge
mbridge
ambri
m g
ge
e
e
niv ca
a
niv cam
am
am
niv ca
a
a
us univ
s univ
s univ
s
us
aa
aarhu
u
u
u
hu
hus
s
s
s
u
aa hu
us
us
us
u
aa
vrije univ amsterdam
m
amsterdam
rdam
mster
amsterdam
amsterda
v am er
er
e am
m
a
univ
univ
v
univ
univ queensland
eensland
ueensland
ueenslan
ueen
quee
u d
d
d
qu sl
sl
s
s nd
d
d
d
d
q
q
q
q
q
v qu
q
q
q
v q
q
q
q
q
dinburgh
inburgh
dinburgh
univ edinbu
dinbur
dinbu
di
dinb
d
din
d
ed
ed
e
e
iv ed
ed
d
ed
d
ed
ed
e
e
e
e
e
v
niv ed
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
e
e
e
niv ed
d
d
d
d
d
d
e
e
e
e
univ
niv
niv
org un
rg un
g u
g
aalbo
org un
bor
bo
bo un
n
un
albo
b
b
b
albo
bo
b
b
albo
b
b
b
hno
hnol
ech
ch
univ te
univ te
eindhoven un
uni
un
u
n u
n u h
h
v ec
echnol
h
v
v
i hnol
l
ech
h
ec
ven
n
n
n
n
n
en
e
e
e
v
oven
n
n
n
en
e
e
v
oven
n
n
n
n
n
en
e
e
v
helsinki
lsin
helsink
univ he
he
h
h
v
ni
n
n nki
nki
i
i
n
n ki
nki
ink
iv
v
v
v
v
i
n
n
n
niv
v
v
ni
n
n
n
n
niv
v
v
v
ni
n
n
n
n
n
ter
r
er
t
v exeter
e
xete
exete
exet
e
v ex
univ
v e
iv
iv
ni
un
u ter
r
er
e
t r
r
r
r
exe
e
ex
e
niv
v
v
u iv
i
ni
i
n
n
un
niv
v
v
u v
iv
i
i
n
un
u
univ
v
v
u v
iv
i
i
n
n
u
s uni
s un
mus un
us
mus u
mu
mus u
mu
mus
mu
erasm
m
m
m
sm
m
a
ra
a
ra
a
erasmus univ
univ
niv
erasmus univ
er
er
r iv
niv
iv
v
un
un
s univ
u
univ
us un
s
s u
un
asm
m
m
sm
sm
sm
a
a
a
a
a
asm
m
m
m
m
r m
m
m
sm
m
a
a
a
ra
a
asm
m
m
m
m
sm
m
s
s
a
a
a
ra
a
en
oning
on
nin
groni
ron
ronin
ro
gron
gron
gr
univ g
gr
g
g
v
v
v
ni
ni
i
univ groningen
ninge
ng
univ groningen
uni
un
un gen
en
ingen
oning
oni
ning
onin
on
oni
i
v g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
v
v
v
iv g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
v
v
v
iv g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
v
v
v univ
univ
un
lto u
o
to u
o
aal
alt
al
a
a
a
a
a
a o un
o
o u
o
aalt
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
aalt
t
aal
a
a
a
a
a
aalt
t
aal
a
a
a
a
a
state univ
state
sta
s
sta
a s
a
a
a
a
arizona
rizona
na
na
na
n
n
o
o
o
o
o
zo
ar
ariz
iz
ari
r z
ar
a
a
a ta
ta
st
s
s
a st
s
a s
a
a
a
na
na
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n natl univ
n n
lian
lian
an
an
an
an
a
ia
ia
ia
ia
i
tral
ra
r
str
t
t
st
t li
li
li
l
l
al
al
l
l
ra
tr
tr
tr
str
tr
aust
au
us
au
au
au
a
a
austr
str
au
au
u
a
a an
an
n
lia
a
ia
ia
i
l
l
al
l
l
l
a
alia
a
a
a
a
a
i
a
a
ali
l
l
l
l
l
al
l
a ia
a
a
ia
a
i
a
al
l
l
l
al
al
l
l
a
rs univ technol
s u
un
u
u
rs
s u
u
u
s u
s u
s
s
s
r
r
lme
me
m
me
m
m
alm
m
l r
r
er
er
r
r
e
e
e
alm
m
lm
chalm
al
al
lm
l
ch
cha
a
c
ch
chalm
lm
lm
lm
cha
al
a
ch
cha
c rs
rs
s
s
s
s
s
rs
r
er
r
r
r
e
ers
s
s
s
s
rs
s
e
er
r
r
r
e
e
e
ers
s
s
s
s
rs
er
r
r
e
e
normal univ
orm
orm
o
n
no
n
n
n
beijing
eij g
ijing
g
b
beijing
be g
g
g
g
g n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
a elect power univ
a le
a
a le
e
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
h china
hi
ch
hin
h na
h c a
a
a
a
north
no th
or
rth
rt
th
th
univ michigan
uni
un
un v
u v
u
u v
v
un
u
un
u
Fig. 3. Inter-institutional collaboration among the top 30 institutions in energy transitions research. Here, collaboration is defined as a co-authorship relationship. A
link between two nodes indicates a co-authorship relationship. Node size indicates the number of co-authorship relationships identified in the dataset. Nodes are
clustered using the Louvain method based on the edges connecting them.
N. Goyal et al.

6
actor
commun
conceptu
emerg
energy justic
experiment
framework
literatur
organis
practic
process
role
social
sociotechn
sociotechnical system
sociotechnical transit
sustainability transit
transit
base
build
ce
circular economi
citi
develop
environment
food
indic
integr
recycl
sustain
sustainable develop
system
urban
wast
water
busi
business model
compani
develop
enterpris
firm
green
industri
innov
market
organ
sector
strategi
technologi
technological innov
transit
base
calcul
comput
data
dynam
forecast
model
optim
paramet
predict
price
propos
simul time
volatil
accept
adopt
attitud
behaviour
car
consum
electric vehicl
ev
individu
inform
particip
percept
prefer
prosum
smart grid
user
coal
countri
economi
energi
energy secur
fossil fuel
global
hydrogen
mine
miner
natural ga
oil
resourc
russia
transit
world
achiev
carbon
carbon transit
cc
climat
decarbon
decarbonis
emiss
ghg
ghg emiss
greenhouse ga
greenhouse gas emiss
low
low carbon
reduc
scenario
sector
target
transport
effect
eu
european union
govern
implement
instrument
legal
market
polici
policy mix
promot
reform
regul
regulatori
state
tax
barrier
cooper
develop
diffus
energy transit
factor
german
germani
innovation system
local
municip
netherland
region
renewable energi
support
technological innovation system
ti
wind energi
access
cook
energi
energy poverti
fuel
health
household
incom
increas
india
lpg
rural
rural area
rural household
stove
transit
china
co2 emiss
converg
countri
decoupl
economi
economic growth
effect
energy consumpt
energy intens
gdp
increas
industri
provinc
region
renewable energy consumpt
argu
care
chang
coalit
conflict
contest
debat
democrat
discours
govern
movement
narr
polit
power
regim
resist
state
capac
cost
electr
electricity gener
electricity system
gener
grid
heat
increas
instal
plant
power
power gener
power pl
power system
pv
renew
solar
system
cluster
decis
energi
energy system
energy transit
expert futur
make
plan
present
quantit
scenario
societ
sustainable energi
uncertainti
vision
asset
bank
capit
cost
financ
financi
fund
invest
investor
profit
project
renew
renewable energi
risk
13: Behavior and consumption 14: Energy access 15: Financing and investment
10: Energy modelling 11: Wind energy 12: Energy future
7: Industry and innovation 8: Governance and policy 9: Renewable energy integration
4: Resource flows 5: Climate change mitigation 6: Politics and power
1: Sociotechnical transition 2: Fossil fuel dependency 3: Economy and energy
Fig. 4. The main themes in energy transitions research. Themes are arranged in descending order of prevalence, from left to right and top to bottom. The key terms
associated with each theme are arranged based on probability of occurrence within the theme (x-axis) and exclusivity to that theme (y-axis).
N. Goyal et al.

7
renewable energy on the ground through an emphasis on competitive
ness of renewable energy [194], energy financing [195–197], renewable
energy investment [198–201], the role of electricity utilities [202], and
policy advice [203].
With an interest in predicting, anticipating, or responding to the
future, Theme 10 on ‘Energy modelling’ is concerned with trend analysis
and short-term forecasting [204] of phenomena such as energy con
sumption [205,206], energy demand [207], energy market volatility
[208], price of energy [209,210]. While several studies use economet
rics for these, the use of machine learning techniques, such as artificial
neural networks or support vector machines, has also become increas
ingly popular. In contrast to Theme 10, Theme 12 on ‘Energy future’
focuses on long-term scenario building to address uncertainty in energy
transitions [211–218].
With a different perspective and analytical focus from the above,
Theme 6 on ‘Politics and power’ emphasizes the contested nature of
energy transitions. Illustratively, studies in this theme delve into topics
such as collective action [219], conflict between business and civil so
ciety [220], energy democracy [221], energy discourse [222–224], en
ergy practices [225], social movements [226], and public participation
[227]. Finally, only Theme 8 explicitly focuses on ‘Governance and
policy’ with studies examining topics such as electricity market reform
[228], governance capacity [229], policy implementation [230,231],
policy process [232], renewable portfolio standards [233], and regula
tory inefficiency [234].
This analysis shows that several themes acknowledge the importance
of policy. This is further corroborated by examining the most frequently
occurring terms related to policy within each theme (Table 2). While the
most common use of policy is descriptive, the notions of policy process
(Theme 1 on ‘Sociotechnical transition’), policy change (Theme 6 on
‘Politics and power’), policy tool (Theme 7 on ‘Industry and innovation’
and Theme 10 on ‘Energy modelling’), policy mixes and policy instru
ment (Theme 8 on ‘Governance and policy’), and policy design (Theme
12 on ‘Energy future’) have been invoked in the literature. However,
policy innovation itself is not a prominent theme in the research and
only theme 8 on ‘Governance and policy’ (with median prevalence in the
dataset) focuses explicitly on public policy. To understand the extent to
which studies in this – and the remaining themes – address policy
innovation, we analyze the conceptual engagement with public policy in
this literature.
4.3. Conceptual engagement with public policy
Although the word policy has been mentioned over 9000 times in
this dataset, either by itself or as part of a phrase, its most common
occurrences indicate descriptive use of the term. These include policy
areas – such as ‘energy polici’ (n > 600), ‘climate [change] polici’ (n >
450), ‘environmental polici’ (n > 150), ‘renewable energy polici’ (n >
100), and ‘innovation polici’ (n > 75) – or terms suggesting policy
relevance rather than policy analysis, such as ‘policy mak[er/ing]’ (n >
800), ‘policy impl[ication]’ (n > 150), ‘public polici’ (n > 100), and
‘policy recommend[ation]’ (n > 75). The frequently occurring terms
indicating plausible conceptual engagement with public policy include
‘policy mix[es]’ (n ~ 200), ‘policy instru[ment]’ (n ~ 150), ‘policy
design’ (n ~ 90), ‘policy chang[e]’ (n ~ 90), ‘policy process’ (n ~ 50),
and ‘policy go[al]’ (n ~ 50). In contrast, terms such as ‘policy innov
[ation]’ (n ~ 25), ‘policy outcom[es]’ (n ~ 20), and policy ‘evalu
[ation]’ (n ~ 19) have been mentioned on few occasions and terms such
as policy entrepreneurship, policy invention, policy diffusion, policy
transfer, and policy success find hardly any mention in this literature.
A correlation network of concepts from policy studies with 10 or
more occurrences in the dataset is shown in Fig. 5. As seen in this figure,
a large strand of the literature delves into policy design in the form of
policy instruments, policy mixes, or policy packages. While some studies
investigate individual policy instruments [235–237], others also
recognize that different policy instruments can interact with one
another. Kern and Howlett [238], for example, argue that characteristics
of policy mixes – such as consistency, coherence, and congruency – in
fluence socio-technical outcomes in (energy) transitions (see also,
[239]). The notion of policy mixes has, consequently, witnessed con
ceptual and empirical advancement, with scholars viewing it as a
multidimensional concept consisting of processes, elements, and char
acteristics and operationalizing it to capture the interaction(s) of public
policy and energy transitions [240,241]. In addition, the concept has
been used normatively, for example, to advocate for policy mixes that
facilitate creation of the new with ‘destabilization of the old’ [242] or
foster energy democracy [243]. Recently, the integration of the concept
of policy mixes with that of policy feedback has been proposed to
examine the co-evolution of policy mixes and sustainability transitions
[14].
The notion of policy change has been discussed in the context of
energy transitions, albeit often descriptively. Several studies do, how
ever, engage with the concept – especially using the advocacy coalition
framework [34] – while examining regime dynamics in the energy
system [244,245]. In an example of a study synthesizing policy change
and policy mixes, Li and Taeihagh [246] conduct a temporal analysis of
policy design, instruments' interaction, and evolution of mixes in China
during 1981–2020. More generally, Kern, Kuzemko [247] develop a
framework to measure policy (paradigm) change while Schmidt and
Sewerin [248] propose an approach to measure policy (mix) change in
the context of energy transitions.
Relatedly, the policy process has received some attention in energy
transitions research. Studies have documented, for example, the differ
ence in the (energy) policy process between the national and the
Table 2
The most frequently occurring terms related to policy in each theme.
1: Sociotechnical transition 2: Fossil fuel dependency 3: Economy and energy 4: Resource flows 5: Climate change mitigation
Policy process Energy polici Policy impl[ication] Policy mak[er/ing] Climate polici
Policy intervent[ion] Policy decis[ion] Environmental polici Policy analysi[s] Policy mak[er/ing]
Policy mak[er/ing] Policy act[ion] Policy mak[er/ing] National polici Policy scenario
Policy docu[ment] Policy opt[ion] Policy recommend[ation] Policy strategi Policy relev[ance]
Policy analysi[s] Economic polici Economic polici Environmental polici Policy recommend[ation]
6: Politics and power 7: Industry and innovation 8: Governance and policy 9: Renewable energy integration 10: Energy modelling
Energy polici Innovation polici Energy polici Policy mak[er/ing] Policy scenario
Policy mak[er/ing] Policy mak[er/ing] Policy mix[es] Policy decis[ion] Policy mak[er/ing]
Policy chang[e] Policy support Policy instru[ment] Policy recommend[ation] Policy tool
Industrial polici Policy perspect[ive] Policy mak[er/ing] Policy support Policy perspect[ive]
Climate polici Policy tool Environmental polici Policy impl[ication] Economic polici
11: Wind energy 12: Energy future 13: Behavior and consumption 14: Energy access 15: Financing and investment
Policy mak[er/ing] Energy polici Policy mak[er/ing] Policy impl[ication] Policy impl[ication]
National polici Policy mak[er/ing] Policy impl[ication] Policy intervent[ion] Effective polici
Energy transition polici Policy impl[ication] Policy intervent[ion] Policy mak[er/ing] Policy mak[er/ing]
Local polici Policy design Policy develop[ment] Energy efficiency polici Policy support
Policy impl[ication] Policy develop[ment] Policy recommend[ation] Energy polici Policy opt[ion]
N. Goyal et al.

8
subnational level [249], the role of incumbent energy generating com
panies in lobbying for status quo [250], the challenge(s) of policy co
ordination given the complex, multi-objective, and uncertain nature of
the energy system [251], the ‘translation’ of transnational policy to the
national level, especially within the European Union [252], and the
effect of inclusivity in the policy process on niche development [253]. A
stage of the policy process, policy implementation has been studied, for
example, in the context of contestation at the local level in the top-down
push for energy infrastructure [254], challenges in translating national
policy at the local level [255], and policy dismantling by veto players
[256]. The notion of policy feedback, too, has been invoked to capture
the influence of path dependence, politics, and vicious (or virtuous)
cycles in governance and policy-making in the energy transitions
[257–260].
This analysis shows that several studies use the term policy (and
associated phrases) descriptively rather than analytically. Further, even
among studies that demonstrate conceptual engagement with public
policy, a majority focus on topics such as policy mixes, policy change,
policy process, policy implementation, and policy feedback. Within the
context of these topics, or otherwise, few studies have used the policy
innovation lens and delved into phenomena such as policy entrepre
neurship, policy invention, policy diffusion, policy transfer, policy out
comes, and policy success.
5. Discussion and conclusion
This study examined over 8000 publications on energy transitions to
answer the question: (to what extent) does energy transitions research
address policy innovation? Using topic modelling, we identified 15
themes in the literature (in descending order of prevalence): socio
technical transition, fossil fuel dependency, economy and energy,
resource flows, climate change mitigation, politics and power, industry
and innovation, governance and policy, renewable energy integration,
energy modelling, wind energy, energy future, behavior and
consumption, energy access, and financing and investment. Thus, while
‘governance and policy’ was discovered as a key theme – and studies in
several other themes acknowledged the importance of public policy –
policy innovation itself is not a prominent theme in this research.
To further understand the extent to which the literature has
addressed policy innovation, we mapped conceptual engagement with
public policy using term frequency analysis and term co-occurrence
analysis. The analysis showed that although the term policy has been
mentioned over 9000 times in our dataset, most uses of the term are
descriptive rather than analytical. Further, while the notions of policy
mixes, policy change, policy process, and – to a lesser extent – policy
implementation and policy feedback have received attention in the
literature, the policy innovation lens has hardly been used. Some studies
have referred to notions of policy innovation, policy evaluation, or
policy outcomes, but almost none have delved into policy invention,
policy entrepreneurship, policy diffusion, policy transfer, or policy
success, despite their relevance for energy transitions. On the whole, the
findings indicate that we know little about policy innovation – and how
to promote it – in the context of energy transitions.
Our findings are comparable to similar reviews conducted previ
ously. Illustratively, in an exploratory review of research on energy
policy in the Netherlands, Hoppe, Coenen [10] had found that policy
studies' concepts were employed in only approximately one-fourth of the
publications on the topic and that policy studies scholars had neglected
energy policy to some extent. Similarly, in a bibliometric review of over
2700 publications on energy policy in India, Goyal [25] showed that
while numerous studies emphasized policy relevance, analysis for policy
and analysis of policy were both limited. Also, in their systematic review
of nearly 200 social science studies on transformation for climate change
mitigation (of which over 50% focused on energy), Moore, Verfuerth
[261] found that only about half of the publications employed any
theory and that only 17 publications used a theory from political
science.
Our study hints at several reasons for why the analysis has unfolded
policy mix
policy instru
policy formul
policy packag
policy innov
policy feedback
policy evalu
policy network
policy design
policy integr
policy target
policy agenda
policy outcom
policy chang
policy implement
policy tool
policy regim
policy process
policy go
yangtze river delta
instrument
packag
3e
feedback
building cod
instrument mix
green new d
gas polici
policy pathwai
llcei
properli
building energy effici
carbon pr
sphere
transport polici
positive feedback
policy effort
societal challeng
policy domain
such polici
innovation polici
yunnan
inhibitor
energy decentr
sustainability transit
nb
bh
political dynam
material effici
instabl
network govern
devolut
social network analysi
corrupt
financial incent
mix
political context
avenu
fc
loan
green busi
saxoni
seawat
practis
isra
longitudin
alternative polici
jatropha
advocacy coalit
bureaucrat
biodiesel
nongovernment
regulatory polici
stringenc
silver landlord
polici
multiregim
eol
owp
cpi
paraguai
entropi
oversight
stall
social outcom
transport energi
chinese economi
coher
cellulos
innovation studi
chinese govern
policy landscap
creative destruct
dsm
dutch energi
substanc
inject
noteworthi
mrio henan
housing sector
mover
nonmonetari
key polici
analogi
multiobject
prerequisit
fyp
green bond
advocaci
orderli
rmb
partisanship
Fig. 5. Correlation network of concepts in policy studies. The nodes represent the phrases used in the literature. A link between two phrases indicates a correlation of
0.10 or more. The color intensity of the link indicates the strength of the correlation.
N. Goyal et al.

9
in this manner. First, a look at the most prolific scholars in this field
reveals that few have a background in policy studies. This may be the
case as energy transitions research is largely normative in nature, with
limited engagement of the social sciences [262], while policy studies
have a more (post-)positivist and interpretivist orientation. A change in
the status quo, however, will require greater participation of policy
studies scholars in energy transitions research as well as more interest in
concepts in public policy (including the policy innovation lens) from
researchers studying energy transitions.
Second, and relatedly, our bibliometric review indicated that scien
tific activity in this research area is Europe-centric and select institutions
– in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, particularly – play a
dominant role in advancing the scholarship, with limited institutional
and country collaboration. While this is problematic for the advance
ment of the scholarship, it also has an implication for the engagement
with policy studies. In a review of publications in a top policy sciences
journal, Goyal [263] had found that nearly 80% of the corresponding
authors were based in North America (see also [264]). A concerted effort
at diversification of theoretical perspectives and/or pan-Atlantic
collaboration may then be necessary for cross-fertilization in energy
transitions research and policy studies.
Third, traditional theories of the policy process (and other concepts
in policy studies) may be perceived as having limited applicability in
explaining phenomena in complex sociotechnical systems. Lovell [265],
for example, argues that theories of the policy process must incorporate
the role of technology in order to explain radical policy change in a
sociotechnical system involving durable infrastructure, such as the low-
energy housing sector in the United Kingdom. In another study, Lovell,
Bulkeley [266] lament the ability of theories of the policy process to
explain change in a context involving the convergence of multiple policy
areas and/or networks (such as climate change and energy). Similarly,
Kern and Rogge [11] find theories of the policy process to be unsuitable
for examining sociotechnical transitions due to their focus on single
policy instruments (rather than instrument mixes) and lack of attention
to policy outcomes.
Fourth, and relatedly, fragmentation in policy studies could be
another reason for its sparse application (and perceived limited appli
cability) in energy transitions research. For example, our co-occurrence
analysis showed that the notion of policy mixes has been frequently
combined with those of policy evaluation/outcomes, policy feedback,
and policy process, thereby moving towards a holistic framework of
analysis. In contrast, concepts such as policy agendas, policy formula
tion, policy goals, (to a lesser extent) policy implementation, policy
innovation, policy networks, and policy regimes have been used largely
in isolation. This problem of fragmentation of concepts in policy studies
has been previously highlighted as a reason for its untapped potential in
creating and mobilizing policy-relevant knowledge [267–269].
While this criticism of policy studies is largely valid, recent research
has shown that theories of the policy process can be adapted – and even
advanced – through applications in complex sociotechnical systems.
Goyal, Howlett [59] and Goyal, Howlett [270], for example, have
adapted the multiple streams framework to explain a policy invention in
energy-water nexus in India and the emergence of the General Data
Protection Regulation in the European Union, both of which involved
significant policy-technology interaction (see also [271]). Similarly,
Dolan [272] has (re-)introduced the notion of partial couplings within
the multiple streams framework to explain policy change at the
convergence of disaster management and climate change adaptation.
Also, Schmid, Sewerin [245] have synthesized the advocacy coalition
framework with policy feedback theory to link policy change with policy
outcomes and subsequent coalition change in the case of the German
energy transition. Relatedly, Goyal [273] has conceptualized policy
success using the multiple streams framework to show how the coupling
among problem, policy, and politics led to political success despite
programmatic failure in the case of the solar energy policy in Gujarat,
India.
The policy innovation lens can, in fact, help address fragmentation in
policy studies and leverage the growing interest in synthesizing policy
studies and transitions research. In a polycentric context, the processes
of invention, diffusion, and success (or failure) often occur simulta
neously in different jurisdictions around the world, making it imperative
to understand whether and how they influence one another. Therefore,
apart from the importance of the three perspectives on policy innova
tion, the lens as a whole emphasizes the need to study invention,
diffusion, and success in an integrated manner. Further, it calls for
combining notions around the policy context (such as policy paradigms
and policy regimes), policy actors (such as policy entrepreneurs and
policy networks), policy characteristics (such as policy design, and
policy processes (such as policy adoption, policy implementation, and
policy feedback) to explain long-term policy outcomes.
How, then, should scholars apply – and further develop – the policy
innovation lens for energy transitions research? In this study, we iden
tified some publications applying the three perspectives – entrepre
neurship or invention, diffusion, and success – individually to cases in
energy transitions. Future research should intensify their use in diverse
contexts in order to create generalizable knowledge on policy innova
tion in energy transitions. In the case of policy success, attention should
also be paid to the process and political outcomes of public policy and
not only its programmatic outcomes.
In addition, we found that the notion of policy mixes has been used
more commonly in energy transitions research. A synthesis of the policy
innovation lens with this concept can facilitate the conceptual
advancement of both and the empirical advancement of energy transi
tions research. For example, scholars could study questions such as:
what is policy invention in the context of policy mixes? why are some
policy mixes more credible, coherent, comprehensive, or consistent that
others? how does policy entrepreneurship influence the characteristics
of policy mixes? how do policy mixes influence the diffusion of public
policy? (see also, [274]) and, how do the different characteristics of
policy mixes influence programmatic, process, and political success?
Finally, analytical frameworks from the field of science & technology
studies have been used more extensively in energy transitions research
as indicated by the key themes identified in this study. Scholars should
examine synergies between these frameworks and the policy innovation
lens to understand the roles of policy invention, diffusion, and success in
sociotechnical transitions systematically. In a recent study, for example,
Derwort, Jager [275] have complemented the use of the multilevel
perspective with that of the multiple streams framework to show that, in
the case of the German energy transition, policy innovation resulted
from an interplay between socio-technical and political dynamics.
Scholars could build on this approach to further synthesize perspectives
on policy innovation with those on sociotechnical change.
To conclude, this study reviewed over 8000 publications on energy
transitions to identify the key themes in the scholarship, map conceptual
engagement with public policy, show the dearth of research on policy
innovation in the literature, and propose avenues for addressing this gap
in the future.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] G. Bridge, et al., Geographies of energy transition: space, place and the low-
carbon economy, Energy Policy 53 (2013) 331–340.
[2] D. Gielen, et al., The role of renewable energy in the global energy
transformation, Energy Strat. Rev. 24 (2019) 38–50.
[3] G. Verbong, F. Geels, The ongoing energy transition: lessons from a socio-
technical, multi-level analysis of the dutch electricity system (1960–2004),
Energy Policy 35 (2) (2007) 1025–1037.
N. Goyal et al.

10
[4] B.K. Sovacool, How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of
energy transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13 (2016) 202–215.
[5] S. Pachauri, L. Jiang, The household energy transition in India and China, Energy
Policy 36 (11) (2008) 4022–4035.
[6] A. Grubler, Energy transitions research: insights and cautionary tales, Energy
Policy 50 (2012) 8–16.
[7] F. Kern, A. Smith, Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy
transition policy in the Netherlands, Energy Policy 36 (11) (2008) 4093–4103.
[8] D. Loorbach, Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive,
complexity-based governance framework, Governance 23 (1) (2010) 161–183.
[9] N. Kittner, F. Lill, D.M. Kammen, Energy storage deployment and innovation for
the clean energy transition, Nat. Energy 2 (9) (2017) 17125.
[10] T. Hoppe, F. Coenen, M. van den Berg, Illustrating the use of concepts from the
discipline of policy studies in energy research: an explorative literature review,
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 21 (2016) 12–32.
[11] F. Kern, K.S. Rogge, Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the
politics of sustainability transitions: a critical survey, Environmental Innovation
and Societal Transitions 27 (2018) 102–117.
[12] F. Kern, K.S. Rogge, M. Howlett, Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: new
approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies, Res.
Policy 48 (10) (2019).
[13] H. Pitt, M. Jones, Scaling up and out as a pathway for food system transitions,
Sustainability 8 (10) (2016) 1025.
[14] D.L. Edmondson, F. Kern, K.S. Rogge, The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-
technical systems: towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in
sustainability transitions, Res. Policy 48 (10) (2019).
[15] UNRISD, Policy Innovations for Transformative Change: Implementing the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, 2016.
[16] A. Jordan, D. Huitema, Policy innovation in a changing climate: sources, patterns
and effects, Glob. Environ. Chang. 29 (2014) 387–394.
[17] M. Howlett, Why are policy innovations rare and so often negative? Blame
avoidance and problem denial in climate change policy-making, Glob. Environ.
Chang. 29 (2014) 395–403.
[18] J.L. Walker, The diffusion of innovations among the American states, Am. Polit.
Sci. Rev. 63 (3) (1969) 880–899.
[19] E. Vedung, Evaluation research, in: B. Peters, J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public
Policy, SAGE, London, UK, 2006, pp. 397–416.
[20] A. McConnell, Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between, J. Public
Policy 30 (3) (2010) 345–362.
[21] N. Goyal, M. Howlett, Technology and instrument constituencies as agents of
innovation: sustainability transitions and the governance of urban transport,
Energies 11 (5) (2018) 1198.
[22] N. Goyal, Promoting Policy Innovation for Sustainability: Leaders, Laggards and
Learners in the Indian Electricity Transition, National University of Singapore,
2019.
[23] A. Jordan, D. Huitema, Innovations in climate policy: the politics of invention,
diffusion, and evaluation, Environ. Politics 23 (5) (2014) 715–734.
[24] A. Jordan, D. Huitema, Innovations in climate policy: conclusions and new
directions, Environ. Politics 23 (5) (2014) 906–925.
[25] N. Goyal, Limited demand or unreliable supply? A bibliometric review and
computational text analysis of research on energy policy in India, Sustainability
13 (23) (2021) 13421.
[26] M. Howlett, B. Cashore, The dependent variable problem in the study of policy
change: understanding policy change as a methodological problem, J. Comp.
Policy Anal. Res. Pract. 11 (1) (2009) 33–46.
[27] W. Blomquist, The policy process and large-n comparative studies, in: P.
A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, Westview Press, Boulder,
Colorado, 1999, pp. 201–223.
[28] M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, A. Perl, Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy
Subsystems 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2009.
[29] H.D. Lasswell, The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis,
University of Maryland Press, College Park, 1956.
[30] G.D. Brewer, Editorial: the policy sciences emerge: to nurture and structure a
discipline, Policy. Sci. 5 (3) (1974) 239–244.
[31] K. Wegrich, J. Werner, Theories of the policy cycle, in: F. Fischer, G. Miller, M.
S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and
Methods, CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, 2006, pp. 69–88.
[32] J.W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed., HarperCollins
College Publishers, New York, 1995.
[33] E. Ostrom, An agenda for the study of institutions, Public Choice 48 (1) (1986)
3–25.
[34] P.A. Sabatier, An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of
policy-oriented learning therein, Policy Sci. 21 (2/3) (1988) 129–168.
[35] P.A. Sabatier, An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of
policy-oriented learning therein, Policy. Sci. 21 (2–3) (1988) 129–168.
[36] F.R. Baumgartner, B.D. Jones, Agendas and Instability in American Politics,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993.
[37] S. Mettler, M. Sorelle, Policy feedback theory, in: C.M. Weible, P.A. Sabatier
(Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process, Taylor and Francis, 2018, pp. 101–133.
[38] M.D. Jones, M.K. McBeth, A narrative policy framework: clear enough to be
wrong? Policy Stud. J. 38 (2) (2010) 329.
[39] C. Llamosas, P. Upham, G. Blanco, Multiple streams, resistance and energy policy
change in Paraguay (2004–2014), Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 42 (2018) 226–236.
[40] R. Karapin, Federalism as a double-edged sword: the slow energy transition in the
United States, J. Environ. Dev. 29 (1) (2019) 26–50.
[41] O. Carmon, I. Fischhendler, A friction perspective for negotiating renewable
energy targets: the Israeli case, Policy. Sci. 54 (2) (2021) 313–344.
[42] I. Argyriou, Urban energy transitions in ordinary cities: Philadelphia’s place-
based policy innovations for socio-technical energy change in the commercial
sector, Urban Res. Pract. 13 (3) (2020) 243–275.
[43] R. Zohlnhöfer, N. Herweg, C. Huß, Bringing formal political institutions into the
multiple streams framework: an analytical proposal for comparative policy
analysis, J. Comp. Policy Anal. Res. Pract. 18 (3) (2016) 243–256.
[44] M. Mintrom, S. Vergari, Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy
change, Policy Stud. J. 24 (3) (1996) 420–434.
[45] T. Heikkila, et al., Understanding a period of policy change: the case of hydraulic
fracturing disclosure policy in Colorado, Rev. Policy Res. 31 (2) (2014) 65–87.
[46] D. Nohrstedt, Shifting resources and venues producing policy change in contested
subsystems: a case study of swedish signals intelligence policy, Policy Stud. J. 39
(3) (2011) 461–484.
[47] N. Carter, M. Jacobs, Explaining radical policy change: the case of climate change
and energy policy under the British labour government 2006–10, Public Adm. 92
(1) (2014) 125–141.
[48] C. Bakir, Policy entrepreneurship and institutional change: multilevel governance
of central banking reform, Governance 22 (4) (2009) 571–598.
[49] M. Mintrom, P. Norman, Policy entrepreneurship and policy change, Policy Stud.
J. 37 (4) (2009) 649–667.
[50] C. Bakir, D.S.L. Jarvis, Contextualising the context in policy entrepreneurship and
institutional change, Policy Soc. 36 (4) (2017) 465–478.
[51] M. Mintrom, C. Salisbury, J. Luetjens, Policy entrepreneurs and promotion of
Australian state knowledge economies, Aust. J. Polit. Sci. 49 (3) (2014) 423–438.
[52] V. Smith, J. Cumming, Implementing pay-for-performance in primary health care:
the role of institutional entrepreneurs, Policy Soc. 36 (4) (2017) 523–538.
[53] S. Kinsella, N. NicGhabhann, A. Ryan, Designing policy: collaborative policy
development within the context of the European capital of culture bid process,
Cult. Trends 26 (3) (2017) 233–248.
[54] S. Meijerink, D. Huitema, Policy entrepreneurs and change strategies: lessons
from sixteen case studies of water transitions around the globe, Ecol. Soc. 15 (2)
(2010) 17.
[55] L.C. Botterill, Are policy entrepreneurs really decisive in achieving policy change?
Drought policy in the USA and Australia, Aust. J. Polit. Hist. 59 (1) (2013)
97–112.
[56] C. Miskel, M. Song, Passing reading first: prominence and processes in an elite
policy network, Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 26 (2) (2004) 89–109.
[57] M. Mintrom, Policy Entrepreneurs and Dynamic Change, Cambridge University
Press, 2019.
[58] D. Huitema, L. Lebel, S. Meijerink, The strategies of policy entrepreneurs in water
transitions around the world, Water Policy 13 (5) (2011) 717–733.
[59] N. Goyal, M. Howlett, N. Chindarkar, Who coupled which stream(s)? Policy
entrepreneurship and innovation in the energy–water nexus in Gujarat, India,
Public Adm. Dev. 40 (1) (2020) 49–64.
[60] R. Prince, Policy transfer as policy assemblage: making policy for the creative
industries in New Zealand, Environ. Plan. A 42 (1) (2010) 169–186.
[61] J. Peck, N. Theodore, Mobilizing policy: models, methods, and mutations,
Geoforum 41 (2) (2010) 169–174.
[62] D. Stone, Transfer and translation of policy, Policy Stud. 33 (6) (2012) 483–499.
[63] F. Gilardi, Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes? Am. J. Polit. Sci.
54 (3) (2010) 650–666.
[64] B.A. Simmons, Z. Elkins, The globalization of liberalization: policy diffusion in
the international political economy, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98 (1) (2004) 171–189.
[65] D. Dolowitz, D. Marsh, Who learns what from whom: a review of the policy
transfer literature, Political Stud. 44 (2) (1996) 343–357.
[66] D.P. Dolowitz, D. Marsh, Learning from abroad: the role of policy transfer in
contemporary policy-making, Governance 13 (1) (2000) 5–24.
[67] F. Dobbin, B. Simmons, G. Garrett, The global diffusion of public policies: Social
construction, coercion, competition, or learning? in: K.S. Cook, D.S. Massey
(Eds.), Annual Review of Sociology, 2007, pp. 449–472.
[68] R. Rose, What is lesson-drawing? J. Public Policy 11 (01) (1991) 3–30.
[69] D. Marsh, J.C. Sharman, Policy diffusion and policy transfer, Policy Stud. 30 (3)
(2009) 269–288.
[70] E.R. Graham, C.R. Shipan, C. Volden, The diffusion of policy diffusion research in
political science, Br. J. Polit. Sci. 43 (3) (2013) 673–701.
[71] C. Zimm, Improving the understanding of electric vehicle technology and policy
diffusion across countries, Transp. Policy 105 (2021) 54–66.
[72] N. Goyal, Policy diffusion through multiple streams: the (non-)adoption of energy
conservation building code in India, Policy Stud. J. (2021), https://doi.org/
10.1111/psj.12415. In press.
[73] C. Morton, C. Wilson, J. Anable, The diffusion of domestic energy efficiency
policies: a spatial perspective, Energy Policy 114 (2018) 77–88.
[74] P.L. Bhamidipati, J. Haselip, U. Elmer Hansen, How do energy policies accelerate
sustainable transitions? Unpacking the policy transfer process in the case of getfit
Uganda, Energy Policy 132 (2019) 1320–1332.
[75] D.A. Heyen, et al., Spillovers between policy-transfer and transitions research,
Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 38 (2021) 79–81.
[76] E. Ostrom, A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological
systems, Science 325 (5939) (2009) 419–422.
[77] D. Huitema, et al., The evaluation of climate policy: theory and emerging practice
in europe, Policy. Sci. 44 (2) (2011) 179–198.
[78] M. Bovens, P. 't Hart, Understanding Policy Fiascoes, Transaction, New
Brunswick, NJ, 1996.
N. Goyal et al.

11
[79] D. Marsh, A. McConnell, Towards a framework for establishing policy success,
Public Adm. 88 (2) (2010) 564–583.
[80] D. Marsh, A. McConnell, Towards a framework for establishing policy success: a
reply to bovens, Public Adm. 88 (2) (2010) 586–587.
[81] M. Bovens, A comment on marsh and mcconnell: towards a framework for
establishing policy success, Public Adm. 88 (2) (2010) 584–585.
[82] M. Bovens, et al., Success and Failure in Public Governance: A Comparative
Analysis, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K.; Northampton, Mass, 2001.
[83] L. Liu, et al., Is china's industrial policy effective? An empirical study of the new
energy vehicles industry, Technol. Soc. 63 (2020), 101356.
[84] S. Han, R. Yao, N. Li, The development of energy conservation policy of buildings
in China: a comprehensive review and analysis, J. Build. Eng. 38 (2021), 102229.
[85] J. Liu, et al., Evaluating the sustainability impact of consolidation policy in
china's coal mining industry: a data envelopment analysis, J. Clean. Prod. 112
(2016) 2969–2976.
[86] H. Brauers, P.-Y. Oei, P. Walk, Comparing coal phase-out pathways: the United
kingdom’s and germany’s diverging transitions, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 37
(2020) 238–253.
[87] M.N. Matinga, J.S. Clancy, H.J. Annegarn, Explaining the non-implementation of
health-improving policies related to solid fuels use in South Africa, Energy Policy
68 (2014) 53–59.
[88] G. Fontaine, J.L. Fuentes, I. Narváez, Policy mixes against oil dependence:
resource nationalism, layering and contradictions in ecuador's energy transition,
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 47 (2019) 56–68.
[89] P. Kivimaa, H.L. Kangas, D. Lazarevic, Client-oriented evaluation of 'creative
destruction' in policy mixes: finnish policies on building energy efficiency
transition, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 33 (2017) 115–127.
[90] M. Aria, C. Cuccurullo, Bibliometrix: an r-tool for comprehensive science
mapping analysis, J. Informetrics 11 (4) (2017) 959–975.
[91] D.M. Blei, Probabilistic topic models, Commun. ACM 55 (4) (2012) 77–84.
[92] M.E. Roberts, B.M. Stewart, D. Tingley, Stm: R package for structural topic
models, J. Stat. Softw. 10 (2) (2014) 1–40.
[93] J. Wijffels, Udpipe: Tokenization, parts of speech tagging, lemmatization and
dependency parsing with the ‘udpipe’ ‘nlp’ toolkit, 2020.
[94] M. Bouchet-Valat, Snowballc: Snowball Stemmers Based on the c 'libstemmer' utf-
8 Library, 2020.
[95] H.E. Aliaattiga, Impact of energy transition on the oil-exporting countries,
J. Energy Dev. 4 (1) (1978) 41–48.
[96] R.S. Berry, Crisis of resource scarcity - transition to an energy-limited economy,
Bull. At. Sci. 31 (1) (1975) 31–36.
[97] D. Hayes, Coming energy transition, Futurist 11 (5) (1977) 303–309.
[98] L.J. Perelman, Speculations on the transition to sustainable energy, Ethics 90 (3)
(1980) 392–416.
[99] D. Yergin, United-States energy-policy - transition to what, World Today 35 (3)
(1979) 81–91.
[100] B.K. Sovacool, R.F. Hirsh, Beyond batteries: an examination of the benefits and
barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (phevs) and a vehicle-to-grid (v2g)
transition, Energy Policy 37 (3) (2009) 1095–1103.
[101] Y. Parag, B.K. Sovacool, Electricity market design for the prosumer era, Nat.
Energy 1 (2016).
[102] W. Haas, et al., How circular is the global economy?: an assessment of material
flows, waste production, and recycling in the european union and the world in
2005, J. Ind. Ecol. 19 (5) (2015) 765–777.
[103] F. Krausmann, et al., Growth in global materials use, gdp and population during
the 20th century, Ecol. Econ. 68 (10) (2009) 2696–2705.
[104] Z.J. Jiang, B.Q. Lin, China's energy demand and its characteristics in the
industrialization and urbanization process: a reply, Energy Policy 60 (2013)
583–585.
[105] X.L. Ouyang, B.Q. Lin, Levelized cost of electricity (lcoe) of renewable energies
and required subsidies in China, Energy Policy 70 (2014) 64–73.
[106] M.P. Hekkert, S.O. Negro, Functions of innovation systems as a framework to
understand sustainable technological change: empirical evidence for earlier
claims, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76 (4) (2009) 584–594.
[107] S.O. Negro, F. Alkemade, M.P. Hekkert, Why does renewable energy diffuse so
slowly? A review of innovation system problems, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16
(6) (2012) 3836–3846.
[108] D.P. van Vuuren, et al., Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions
trajectories under a green growth paradigm, in: Global Environmental Change-
Human and Policy Dimensions 42, 2017, pp. 237–250.
[109] J. Rogelj, et al., Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase
below 1.5 degrees c, Nat. Clim. Chang. 8 (4) (2018) 325.
[110] F.W. Geels, Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical
transitions: developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers
between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional
theory, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 152 (2020) 17.
[111] A. Forman, Energy justice at the end of the wire: enacting community energy and
equity in wales, Energy Policy 107 (2017) 649–657.
[112] M. Martiskainen, The role of community leadership in the development of
grassroots innovations, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 22 (2017) 78–89.
[113] J. Chilvers, H. Pallett, T. Hargreaves, Ecologies of participation in socio-technical
change: the case of energy system transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 42 (2018)
199–210.
[114] F. Faller, A practice approach to study the spatial dimensions of the energy
transition, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 19 (2016) 85–95.
[115] T. Hansen, L. Coenen, The geography of sustainability transitions: review,
synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field, Environ. Innov. Soc.
Trans. 17 (2015) 92–109.
[116] P. Kivimaa, et al., Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability
transitions: a systematic review and a research agenda, Res. Policy 48 (4) (2019)
1062–1075.
[117] H. Schroeder, S. Burch, S. Rayner, Novel multisector networks and
entrepreneurship in urban climate governance, Environ. Plann. CGov. Policy 31
(5) (2013) 761–768.
[118] B.K. Sovacool, C. Cooper, P. Parenteau, From a hard place to a rock: questioning
the energy security of a coal-based economy, Energy Policy 39 (8) (2011)
4664–4670.
[119] G.G. Bazán, C.J. González, Mexican oil industry: shifting to difficult oil, Energy
Environ. 22 (5) (2011) 573–578.
[120] M.T. Le, et al., What prospects for shale gas in asia? Case of shale gas in China,
J. World Energy Law Bus. 13 (5–6) (2021) 426–440.
[121] V.S. Arutyunov, G.V. Lisichkin, Energy resources of the 21st century: problems
and forecasts. Can renewable energy sources replace fossil fuels? Russ. Chem.
Rev. 86 (8) (2017) 777–804.
[122] D.L. Greene, J.L. Hopson, J. Li, Have we run out of oil yet? Oil peaking analysis
from an optimist's perspective, Energy Policy 34 (5) (2006) 515–531.
[123] R. Hölsgens, Resource dependence and energy risks in the Netherlands since the
mid-nineteenth century, Energy Policy 125 (2019) 45–54.
[124] L. Piper, H. Green, A province powered by coal: the renaissance of coal mining in
late twentieth-century Alberta, Can. Hist. Rev. 98 (3) (2017) 532–567.
[125] A. Schaffartzik, M. Fischer-Kowalski, Latecomers to the fossil energy transition,
frontrunners for change? The relevance of the energy ‘underdogs’ for
sustainability transformations, Sustainability 10 (8) (2018) 2650.
[126] K. Oshiro, et al., Enabling energy system transition toward decarbonization in
Japan through energy service demand reduction, Energy 227 (2021), 120464.
[127] A. Marcucci, S. Kypreos, E. Panos, The road to achieving the long-term Paris
targets: energy transition and the role of direct air capture, Clim. Chang. 144 (2)
(2017) 181–193.
[128] D.P. van Vuuren, et al., Alternative pathways to the 1.5 ◦
C target reduce the need
for negative emission technologies, Nat.Clim. Chang. 8 (5) (2018) 391–397.
[129] H.L. van Soest, et al., Early action on Paris agreement allows for more time to
change energy systems, Clim. Chang. 144 (2) (2017) 165–179.
[130] A.C. Köberle, et al., Brazil’s emission trajectories in a well-below 2 ◦
c world: the
role of disruptive technologies versus land-based mitigation in an already low-
emission energy system, Clim. Chang. 162 (4) (2020) 1823–1842.
[131] K. Jiang, et al., Emission scenario analysis for China under the global 1.5 ◦
c target,
Carbon Manag. 9 (5) (2018) 481–491.
[132] S. Mittal, et al., An assessment of near-to-mid-term economic impacts and energy
transitions under “2 ◦
c” and “1.5 ◦
c” scenarios for India, Energies 11 (9) (2018)
2213.
[133] T. Kuramochi, et al., Ten key short-term sectoral benchmarks to limit warming to
1.5◦
C, Clim. Pol. 18 (3) (2018) 287–305.
[134] C. Bertram, et al., Carbon lock-in through capital stock inertia associated with
weak near-term climate policies, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 90 (2015) 62–72.
[135] S.-W. Kim, K. Lee, K. Nam, The relationship between co2 emissions and economic
growth: the case of Korea with nonlinear evidence, Energy Policy 38 (10) (2010)
5938–5946.
[136] N. Apergis, et al., Hydroelectricity consumption and economic growth nexus:
evidence from a panel of ten largest hydroelectricity consumers, Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 62 (2016) 318–325.
[137] C.-Q. Ma, et al., The impact of economic growth, fdi and energy intensity on
China's manufacturing industry's CO2 emissions: an empirical study based on the
fixed-effect panel quantile regression model, Energies 12 (24) (2019) 4800.
[138] Y. Tian, X. Yang, Asymmetric effects of industrial energy prices on carbon
productivity, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (33) (2020) 42133–42149.
[139] M. Chang, et al., Comparative analysis on the socioeconomic drivers of industrial
air-pollutant emissions between Japan and China: insights for the further-
abatement period based on the lmdi method, J. Clean. Prod. 189 (2018) 240–250.
[140] Y. He, B. Lin, Investigating environmental kuznets curve from an energy intensity
perspective: empirical evidence from China, J. Clean. Prod. 234 (2019)
1013–1022.
[141] S.A. Raza, et al., Non-linear relationship between tourism, economic growth,
urbanization, and environmental degradation: evidence from smooth transition
models, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 (2) (2021) 1426–1442.
[142] H. Wang, et al., The impact of technological progress on energy intensity in China
(2005–2016): evidence from a geographically and temporally weighted
regression model, Energy 226 (2021), 120362.
[143] G. Banias, et al., A life cycle analysis approach for the evaluation of municipal
solid waste management practices: the case study of the region of Central
Macedonia, Greece, Sustainability 12 (19) (2020).
[144] P.P. Zhang, et al., Food-energy-water (few) nexus for urban sustainability: a
comprehensive review, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 142 (2019) 215–224.
[145] H. Schlor, C. Marker, S. Venghaus, Developing a nexus systems thinking test -a
qualitative multi- and mixed methods analysis, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 138
(2021).
[146] S. Huysman, et al., Toward a systematized framework for resource efficiency
indicators, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 95 (2015) 68–76.
[147] J.K. Musango, et al., Urban metabolism of the informal city: probing and
measuring the 'unmeasurable' to monitor sustainable development goal 11
indicators, Ecol. Indic. 119 (2020).
N. Goyal et al.

12
[148] G. Liobikiene, et al., Evaluation of bioeconomy in the context of strong
sustainability, Sustain. Dev. 27 (5) (2019) 955–964.
[149] S. Paiho, et al., Towards circular cities-conceptualizing core aspects, Sustain.
Cities Soc. 59 (2020).
[150] Y.M.B. Saavedra, et al., Theoretical contribution of industrial ecology to circular
economy, J. Clean. Prod. 170 (2018) 1514–1522.
[151] T. Joensuu, H. Edelman, A. Saari, Circular economy practices in the built
environment, J. Clean. Prod. 276 (2020).
[152] C. Merchan-Hernandez, A.L. Leal-Rodriguez, Revisiting the triple helix innovation
framework: the case of abengoa, in: M. PerisOrtiz, et al. (Eds.), Multiple Helix
Ecosystems for Sustainable Competitiveness, Springer, New York, 2016,
pp. 45–58.
[153] A. Bergek, Diffusion intermediaries: a taxonomy based on renewable electricity
technology in Sweden, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 36 (2020) 378–392.
[154] N. Sick, S. Broring, E. Figgemeier, Start-ups as technology life cycle indicator for
the early stage of application: an analysis of the battery value chain, J. Clean.
Prod. 201 (2018) 325–333.
[155] A. Marra, et al., A network analysis using metadata to investigate innovation in
clean-tech - implications for energy policy, Energy Policy 86 (2015) 17–26.
[156] E. Mlecnik, Development of the passive house market: challenges and
opportunities in the transition from innovators to early adopters, in: Innovation
Development for Highly Energy-efficient Housing: Opportunities and Challenges
Related to the Adoption of Passive Houses, Ios Press, Amsterdam, 2013,
pp. 119–140.
[157] M. Hellstrom, et al., Collaboration mechanisms for business models in distributed
energy ecosystems, J. Clean. Prod. 102 (2015) 226–236.
[158] H. Lutjen, et al., Managing ecosystems for service innovation: a dynamic
capability view, J. Bus. Res. 104 (2019) 506–519.
[159] K. Lygnerud, Challenges for business change in district heating, Energy Sustain.
Soc. 8 (2018) 13.
[160] D. Sloot, L. Jans, L. Steg, In it for the money, the environment, or the community?
Motives for being involved in community energy initiatives, Glob. Environ.
Chang. Hum. Policy Dimens. 57 (2019) 10.
[161] A.M. Peters, E. van der Werff, L. Steg, Beyond purchasing: electric vehicle
adoption motivation and consistent sustainable energy behaviour in the
Netherlands, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 39 (2018) 234–247.
[162] H.B. Du, et al., Who buys new energy vehicles in china? Assessing social-
psychological predictors of purchasing awareness, intention, and policy,
Transport. Res. F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 58 (2018) 56–69.
[163] J. Axsen, S. Goldberg, J. Bailey, How might potential future plug-in electric
vehicle buyers differ from current "pioneer" owners? Transp. Res. Part D: Transp.
Environ. 47 (2016) 357–370.
[164] V. Azarova, et al., The potential for community financed electric vehicle charging
infrastructure, Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 88 (2020) 21.
[165] R.L. Li, et al., Are building users prepared for energy flexible buildings?-a large-
scale survey in the Netherlands, Appl. Energy 203 (2017) 623–634.
[166] B. Lazowski, P. Parker, I.H. Rowlands, Towards a smart and sustainable
residential energy culture: assessing participant feedback from a long-term smart
grid pilot project, Energy Sustain. Soc. 8 (2018) 21.
[167] J. Hojnik, et al., What you give is what you get: willingness to pay for green
energy, Renew. Energy 174 (2021) 733–746.
[168] T.T. Nguyen, et al., Energy transition, poverty and inequality in Vietnam, Energy
Policy 132 (2019) 536–548.
[169] T. Aung, et al., Energy access and the ultra-poor: do unconditional social cash
transfers close the energy access gap in Malawi? Energy Sustain. Dev. 60 (2021)
11.
[170] T.G. Reames, M.A. Reiner, M. Ben Stacey, An incandescent truth: disparities in
energy-efficient lighting availability and prices in an urban us county, Appl.
Energy 218 (2018) 95–103.
[171] Z.C. Win, et al., Consumption rates and use patterns of firewood and charcoal in
urban and rural communities in Yedashe township, Myanmar, Forests 9 (7)
(2018) 11.
[172] A. Karimu, Cooking fuel preferences among Ghanaian households: an empirical
analysis, Energy Sustain. Dev. 27 (2015) 10–17.
[173] D.B. Rahut, et al., A ladder within a ladder: understanding the factors influencing
a household's domestic use of electricity in four African countries, Energy Econ.
66 (2017) 167–181.
[174] N. Chindarkar, A. Jain, S. Mani, Examining the willingness-to-pay for exclusive
use of lpg for cooking among rural households in India, Energy Policy 150 (2021)
10.
[175] I. Das, P. Jagger, K. Yeatts, Biomass cooking fuels and health outcomes for women
in Malawi, EcoHealth 14 (1) (2017) 7–19.
[176] P. Maji, Z. Mehrabi, M. Kandlikar, Incomplete transitions to clean household
energy reinforce gender inequality by lowering women's respiratory health and
household labour productivity, World Dev. 139 (2021) 10.
[177] C.C. Kung, B.A. McCarl, The potential role of renewable electricity generation in
Taiwan, Energy Policy 138 (2020) 13.
[178] T. Trondle, Supply-side options to reduce land requirements of fully renewable
electricity in Europe, PLoS One 15 (8) (2020) 19.
[179] M.A.J.R. Quirapas, A. Taeihagh, Ocean renewable energy development in
Southeast Asia: opportunities, risks and unintended consequences, Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 137 (September) (2021) 110403.
[180] O. Lugovoy, et al., Feasibility study of China's electric power sector transition to
zero emissions by 2050, Energy Econ. 96 (2021) 40.
[181] J.E. Martinez-Jaramillo, A. van Ackere, E.R. Larsen, Towards a solar-hydro based
generation: the case of Switzerland, Energy Policy 138 (2020) 11.
[182] S. Jenniches, E. Worrell, Regional economic and environmental impacts of
renewable energy developments: solar pv in the Aachen region, Energy Sustain.
Dev. 48 (2019) 11–24.
[183] U. Caldera, et al., Role of seawater desalination in the management of an
integrated water and 100% renewable energy based power sector in Saudi Arabia,
Water 10 (1) (2018) 32.
[184] J. Kopiske, S. Spieker, G. Tsatsaronis, Value of power plant flexibility in power
systems with high shares of variable renewables: a scenario outlook for Germany
2035, Energy 137 (2017) 823–833.
[185] H. Hahn, et al., Techno-economic assessment of a subsea energy storage
technology for power balancing services, Energy 133 (2017) 121–127.
[186] S.O. Negro, M.P. Hekkert, R.E. Smits, Explaining the failure of the dutch
innovation system for biomass digestion - a functional analysis, Energy Policy 35
(2) (2007) 925–938.
[187] H.E. Edsand, Identifying barriers to wind energy diffusion in Colombia: a function
analysis of the technological innovation system and the wider context, Technol.
Soc. 49 (2017) 1–15.
[188] K.Y. Kebede, T. Mitsufuji, Technological innovation system building for diffusion
of renewable energy technology: a case of solar pv systems in Ethiopia, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 114 (2017) 242–253.
[189] L.M. Lutz, et al., Driving factors for the regional implementation of renewable
energy - a multiple case study on the German energy transition, Energy Policy 105
(2017) 136–147.
[190] K. Langer, et al., A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind
energy in Bavaria, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 64 (2016) 248–259.
[191] G. Mauro, The new "windscapes" in the time of energy transition: a comparison of
ten European countries, Appl. Geogr. 109 (2019) 15.
[192] T. Meister, et al., How municipalities support energy cooperatives: survey results
from Germany and Switzerland, Energy Sustain. Soc. 10 (1) (2020) 20.
[193] Q. Wang, et al., Gis-based approach for municipal renewable energy planning to
support post-earthquake revitalization: a Japanese case study, Sustainability 8 (7)
(2016) 20.
[194] P.R. Hartley, K.B. Medlock III, The valley of death for new energy technologies,
Energy J. 38 (3) (2017).
[195] R. Best, Switching towards coal or renewable energy? The effects of financial
capital on energy transitions, Energy Econ. 63 (2017) 75–83.
[196] N. Bento, G. Gianfrate, S.V. Groppo, Do crowdfunding returns reward risk?
Evidences from clean-tech projects, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 141 (2019)
107–116.
[197] J.W. Kim, J.-S. Lee, Greening energy finance of multilateral development banks:
review of the world bank's energy project investment (1985–2019), Energies 14
(9) (2021) 2648.
[198] B. Steffen, The importance of project finance for renewable energy projects,
Energy Econ. 69 (2018) 280–294.
[199] J. Curtin, et al., Quantifying stranding risk for fossil fuel assets and implications
for renewable energy investment: a review of the literature, Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 116 (2019), 109402.
[200] S. Salm, S.L. Hille, R. Wüstenhagen, What are retail investors' risk-return
preferences towards renewable energy projects? A choice experiment in
Germany, Energy Policy 97 (2016) 310–320.
[201] A. Shimbar, S.B. Ebrahimi, Political risk and valuation of renewable energy
investments in developing countries, Renew. Energy 145 (2020) 1325–1333.
[202] S. Patala, et al., Multinational energy utilities in the energy transition: a
configurational study of the drivers of fdi in renewables, J. Int. Bus. Stud. 52 (5)
(2021) 930–950.
[203] K. Yanosek, Policies for financing the energy transition, Daedalus 141 (2) (2012)
94–104.
[204] R. Gutierrez, R. Gutierrez-Sanchez, A. Nafidi, Modelling and forecasting vehicle
stocks using the trends of stochastic Gompertz diffusion models: the case of Spain,
Appl. Stoch. Model. Bus. Ind. 25 (3) (2009) 385–405.
[205] E. Gabreyohannes, A nonlinear approach to modelling the residential electricity
consumption in Ethiopia, Energy Econ. 32 (3) (2010) 515–523.
[206] A. Azadeh, S.F. Ghaderi, S. Sohrabkhani, A simulated-based neural network
algorithm for forecasting electrical energy consumption in Iran, Energy Policy 36
(7) (2008) 2637–2644.
[207] H.T. Nguyen, I.T. Nabney, Short-term electricity demand and gas price forecasts
using wavelet transforms and adaptive models, Energy 35 (9) (2010) 3674–3685.
[208] H. Qu, et al., Forecasting realized volatility in electricity markets using logistic
smooth transition heterogeneous autoregressive models, Energy Econ. 54 (2016)
68–76.
[209] S.L. Sun, et al., Interval decomposition ensemble approach for crude oil price
forecasting, Energy Econ. 76 (2018) 274–287.
[210] M. Cerjan, M. Matijas, M. Delimar, Dynamic hybrid model for short-term
electricity price forecasting, Energies 7 (5) (2014) 3304–3318.
[211] M. Tavana, et al., A review of uncertain decision-making methods in energy
management using text mining and data analytics, Energies 13 (15) (2020) 23.
[212] G.A.H. Laugs, H.C. Moll, A review of the bandwidth and environmental discourses
of future energy scenarios: shades of green and gray, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
67 (2017) 520–530.
[213] T. Pregger, et al., Moving towards socio-technical scenarios of the german energy
transition-lessons learned from integrated energy scenario building, Clim. Chang.
162 (4) (2020) 1743–1762.
[214] L. Braunreiter, M. Stauffacher, Y.B. Blumer, How the public imagines the energy
future: exploring and clustering non-experts' techno-economic expectations
towards the future energy system, PLoS One 15 (3) (2020) 20.
N. Goyal et al.

13
[215] A. Ernst, et al., Benefits and challenges of participatory methods in qualitative
energy scenario development, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 127 (2018)
245–257.
[216] S. Schar, J. Geldermann, Adopting multiactor multicriteria analysis for the
evaluation of energy scenarios, Sustainability 13 (5) (2021) 19.
[217] L. Braunreiter, Y.B. Blumer, Of sailors and divers: how researchers use energy
scenarios, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40 (2018) 118–126.
[218] W. McDowall, Exploring possible transition pathways for hydrogen energy: a
hybrid approach using socio-technical scenarios and energy system modelling,
Futures 63 (2014) 1–14.
[219] A. Stirling, How deep is incumbency? A 'configuring fields' approach to
redistributing and reorienting power in socio-material change, Energy Res. Soc.
Sci. 58 (2019).
[220] S. Villo, M. Halme, T. Ritvala, Theorizing mne-Ngo conflicts in state-capitalist
contexts: insights from the greenpeace, gazprom and the russian state dispute in
the arctic, J. World Bus. 55 (3) (2020) 12.
[221] J. Angel, Towards an energy politics in-against-and-beyond the state: Berlin's
struggle for energy democracy, Antipode 49 (3) (2017) 557–576.
[222] E. Tarasova, (non-) alternative energy transitions: examining neoliberal
rationality in official nuclear energy discourses of Russia and Poland, Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 41 (2018) 128–135.
[223] C. Mang-Benza, C. Hunsberger, Wandering identities in energy transition
discourses: political leaders' use of the "we" pronoun in Ontario, 2009–2019, Can.
Geogr. 64 (3) (2020) 516–529.
[224] D.J. Hess, Coalitions, framing, and the politics of energy transitions: local
democracy and community choice in California, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 50 (2019)
38–50.
[225] G. Walker, A. Karvonen, S. Guy, Zero carbon homes and zero carbon living:
sociomaterial interdependencies in carbon governance, Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 40
(4) (2015) 494–506.
[226] B. Akbulut, et al., Who promotes sustainability? Five theses on the relationships
between the degrowth and the environmental justice movements, Ecol. Econ. 165
(2019) 9.
[227] G.C.L. Huang, R.Y. Chen, B.B. Park, Democratic innovations as a party tool: a
comparative analysis of nuclear energy public participation in Taiwan and South
Korea, Energy Policy 153 (2021) 17.
[228] A. Ibarra-Yunez, Energy reform in Mexico: imperfect unbundling in the electricity
sector, Util. Policy 35 (2015) 19–27.
[229] A.S. Cabeca, et al., A multicriteria classification approach for assessing the current
governance capacities on energy efficiency in the european union, Energy Policy
148 (2021) 19.
[230] M. Jakob, et al., Green fiscal reform for a just energy transition in latin america,
Econ. Open Access OpenAssess. EJ. 13 (2019) 11.
[231] K. Lo, Governing china's clean energy transition: policy reforms, flexible
implementation and the need for empirical investigation, Energies 8 (11) (2015)
13255–13264.
[232] Z.X. Zhang, Carbon emissions trading in China: the evolution from pilots to a
nationwide scheme, Clim. Pol. 15 (2015) S104–S126.
[233] Y. Zhou, et al., Can the renewable portfolio standards improve social welfare in
china's electricity market? Energy Policy 152 (2021) 14.
[234] P.K. Adom, The transition between energy efficient and energy inefficient states
in Cameroon, Energy Econ. 54 (2016) 248–262.
[235] A. Ziegler, Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy
sources and propulsion technologies in vehicles: a discrete choice analysis for
Germany, Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 46 (8) (2012) 1372–1385.
[236] H. Turton, L. Barreto, Long-term security of energy supply and climate change,
Energy Policy 34 (15) (2006) 2232–2250.
[237] M. Lehner, O. Mont, E. Heiskanen, Nudging – a promising tool for sustainable
consumption behaviour? J. Clean. Prod. 134 (2016) 166–177.
[238] F. Kern, M. Howlett, Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a
case study of the dutch energy sector, Policy. Sci. 42 (4) (2009) 391–408.
[239] V. Costantini, F. Crespi, A. Palma, Characterizing the policy mix and its impact on
eco-innovation: a patent analysis of energy-efficient technologies, Res. Policy 46
(4) (2017) 799–819.
[240] K.S. Rogge, K. Reichardt, Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended
concept and framework for analysis, Res. Policy 45 (8) (2016) 132–147.
[241] K.S. Rogge, F. Kern, M. Howlett, Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing
policy mixes for energy transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 33 (2017) 1–10.
[242] P. Kivimaa, F. Kern, Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation
policy mixes for sustainability transitions, Res. Policy 45 (1) (2016) 205–217.
[243] M.J. Burke, J.C. Stephens, Energy democracy: goals and policy instruments for
sociotechnical transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 33 (2017) 35–48.
[244] J. Markard, M. Suter, K. Ingold, Socio-technical transitions and policy change -
advocacy coalitions in swiss energy policy, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 18 (2016)
215–237.
[245] N. Schmid, S. Sewerin, T.S. Schmidt, Explaining advocacy coalition change with
policy feedback, Policy Stud. J. 48 (4) (2020) 1109–1134, https://doi.org/
10.1111/psj.12365.
[246] L. Li, A. Taeihagh, An in-depth analysis of the evolution of the policy mix for the
sustainable energy transition in China from 1981 to 2020, Appl. Energy 263
(February) (2020) 114611.
[247] F. Kern, C. Kuzemko, C. Mitchell, Measuring and explaining policy paradigm
change: the case of UK energy policy, Policy Polit. 42 (4) (2014) 513–530.
[248] T.S. Schmidt, S. Sewerin, Measuring the temporal dynamics of policy mixes–an
empirical analysis of renewable energy policy mixes’ balance and design features
in nine countries, Res. Policy 48 (10) (2019), 103557, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2018.03.012.
[249] J. Keirstead, N.B. Schulz, London and beyond: taking a closer look at urban
energy policy, Energy Policy 38 (9) (2010) 4870–4879.
[250] M. Lockwood, C. Mitchell, R. Hoggett, Unpacking ‘regime resistance’ in low-
carbon transitions: the case of the British capacity market, Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
58 (2019), 101278.
[251] D. Greenwood, The challenge of policy coordination for sustainable
sociotechnical transitions: the case of the zero-carbon homes agenda in England,
Environ. Plann. CGov. Policy 30 (1) (2012) 162–179.
[252] M. Albrecht, et al., Translating bioenergy policy in Europe: mutation, aims and
boosterism in Eu energy governance, Geoforum 87 (2017) 73–84.
[253] M. Ratinen, P. Lund, Policy inclusiveness and niche development: examples from
wind energy and photovoltaics in Denmark, Germany, Finland, and Spain, Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 6 (2015) 136–145.
[254] S. Geall, W. Shen, Gongbuzeren, Solar energy for poverty alleviation in china:
State ambitions, bureaucratic interests, and local realities 41 (2018) 238–248.
[255] J. Wu, et al., Mind the gap! Barriers and implementation deficiencies of energy
policies at the local scale in urban china, Energy Policy 106 (2017) 201–211.
[256] S. Davidescu, R. Hiteva, T. Maltby, Two steps forward, one step back: Renewable
energy transitions in Bulgaria and Romania, Public Adm. 96 (3) (2018) 611–625.
[257] D. Rosenbloom, J. Meadowcroft, B. Cashore, Stability and climate policy?
Harnessing insights on path dependence, policy feedback, and transition
pathways, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 50 (2019) 168–178.
[258] M. Lockwood, et al., Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable
energy transitions: a research agenda, Environ. Plann. C Polit. Space 35 (2)
(2017) 312–333.
[259] Y. Strauch, Beyond the low-carbon niche: Global tipping points in the rise of
wind, solar, and electric vehicles to regime scale systems, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 62
(2020), 101364.
[260] J. Meckling, Governing renewables: Policy feedback in a global energy transition,
Environ. Plann. C Polit. Space 37 (2) (2018) 317–338.
[261] B. Moore, et al., Transformations for climate change mitigation: a systematic
review of terminology, concepts, and characteristics, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim.
Chang. 12 (6) (2021), e738.
[262] B.K. Sovacool, What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy
scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda, Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
1 (2014) 1–29.
[263] N. Goyal, A “review” of policy sciences: bibliometric analysis of authors,
references, and topics during 1970–2017, Policy. Sci. 50 (4) (2017) 527–537.
[264] O.G. El-Taliawi, N. Goyal, M. Howlett, Holding out the promise of lasswell's
dream: Big data analytics in public policy research and teaching, Rev. Policy Res.
38 (6) (2021) 640–660.
[265] H. Lovell, Exploring the role of materials in policy change: Innovation in low-
energy housing in the UK, Environ Plan A 39 (10) (2007) 2500–2517.
[266] H. Lovell, H. Bulkeley, S. Owens, Converging agendas? Energy and climate
change policies in the UK, Environ. Plann. C Govern. Policy 27 (1) (2009) 90–109.
[267] E. Schlager, A response to kim quaile hill's in search of policy theory, Policy Curr.
7 (2) (1997) 14–17.
[268] H. Saetren, Facts and myths about research on public policy implementation: out-
of-fashion, allegedly dead, but still very much alive and relevant, Policy Stud. J.
33 (4) (2005) 559–582.
[269] N. Goyal, M. Howlett, Framework or metaphor? Analysing the status of policy
learning in the policy sciences, J. Asian Public Policy (2018) 1–17.
[270] N. Goyal, M. Howlett, A. Taeihagh, Why and how does the regulation of emerging
technologies occur? Explaining the adoption of the Eu general data protection
regulation using the multiple streams framework, Regul. Govern. 15 (4) (2021)
1020–1034, https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12387.
[271] N. Goyal, M. Howlett, Who learns what in sustainability transitions? Environ.
Innov. Soc. Trans. 34 (2020) 311–321.
[272] D.A. Dolan, Multiple partial couplings in the multiple streams framework: the
case of extreme weather and climate change adaptation, Policy Stud. J. 49 (1)
(2021) 164–189, https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12341.
[273] N. Goyal, Explaining policy success using the multiple streams framework:
political success despite programmatic failure of the solar energy policy in
Gujarat, India, Politics Policy 49 (5) (2021) 1021–1060, https://doi.org/
10.1111/polp.12426.
[274] M. Howlett, J. Rayner, Third generation policy diffusion studies and the analysis
of policy mixes: two steps forward and one step back? J. Comp. Policy Anal. Res.
Pract. 10 (4) (2008) 385–402.
[275] Derwort, P., N. Jager, and J. Newig, How to explain major policy change towards
sustainability? Bringing together the multiple streams framework and the
multilevel perspective on socio-technical transitions to explore the german
“energiewende”. Policy Studies Journal. n/a(n/a).
N. Goyal et al.

Whither policy innovation? Mapping conceptual engagement with public policy in energy transitions research

More Related Content

Similar to Whither policy innovation? Mapping conceptual engagement with public policy in energy transitions research (20)

More from Araz Taeihagh (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Whither policy innovation? Mapping conceptual engagement with public policy in energy transitions research