Korea’s transition experiments as a post catch-up project

Figures & data

Figure 1: Socio-technical system transition from a multi-level perspective. Source: Partly a revision of Geels (2004).

Table 1: Distinctive characteristics of transition experiments.

	Classical innovation experiment	Transition experiment
Starting point	Possible solution (to make innovation market-ready)	Societal challenge
Nature of the problem	A priori defined and well-structured	Uncertain and complex
Objective	Identifying satisfactory solution (innovation)	Contributing to societal change (transition)
Perspective	Short and medium term	Medium and long term
Method	Testing and demonstration	Exploring, searching, and learning
Learning	First order, single domain, and individual	Second order (reflexive), multiple domains (broad), and collective (social learning)
Actors	Specialised staff (researchers, engineers, professionals)	Multi-actor alliance (across society)
Experiment context	(Party) controlled context	Real-life societal context
Management context	Classical project management (focused on project goals)	Transition management (focused on societal ‘transition’ goals)

Sources: Bosch and Rotmans (2008) and Bosch (2010).

Table 2: Differences between catch-up and post catch-up.

	Catch-up strategy of late-comers	Post catch-up strategy of late-comers
Innovation path	Target with which to catch up	No target to catch; target should be independently developed
Focus	- Quick mimicking and learning strategy - Short-term performance and efficiency	- Independently exploring a path - Focusing on realising long-term vision
Innovation model	Reverse engineering	Creative innovation and architectural innovation
Role of government	Emphasis on role as a ruling entity for the development of the nation	Developing a vision for transition towards innovation systems and leading through transitional time
Strengths	- With the presence of a target to catch, quick catch-up is possible - Mimicking and learning are less costly with less political resistance	- Fixedness of existing socio-technical system is low - Flexible response is possible thanks to small sunk cost - A certain level of technical knowledge
Weaknesses	Shortage of technology, manpower, knowledge, and infrastructure	Due to strong path-dependency stemming from experience and legacy as a catch-up country

Sources: Kim and Seong (2010) and Seong and Song (2010).

Figure 2: Analytical model.

Figure 3: Goal of the Low-Carbon Green Village. Source: Korea Environment Corporation (2010); https://www.greenvill.or.kr.

Table 3: Summary of cases.

	Low-Carbon Green Village project	Hatbit Power Plant
Timing of launch	October 2008	April 2012
Lead	Central government	Local government + citizen groups
Vision	Build resource-recycling villages and form communities of self-supporting energy systems	Build a sustainable city using new renewable energy to combat climate change
Goals	Lift the energy self-sufficiency rate of the villages to 40–50% by 2020	Lift the power self-sufficiency rate to 20% by 2020
Characteristics of transition	Rapid project implementation over a short period through the central government’s lead	Long-term approach for energy system transition Transition from government-led to citizen-led installation and management of Hatbit (solar) power plants Search for a new solution for social issues, for example, the construction of a solar power plant as a source of renewable energy instead of adding more nuclear or thermal power plants
Significance and challenges	Environmental value reflected in policy unlike the existing economic development policy Lack of project information sharing and insufficient opinion gathering among villagers Local provinces not playing a seed role for system transition Lack of a foundation for roll-out through learning	More citizen involvement in the transition from top-down to bottom-up Building a foundation for change in energy policy trajectories from fossil fuel to renewable energy Increased need for linkage and synchronisation with the relevant institutes for successful policy diffusion

Geels, F. (2004), ‘Understanding system innovations: a critical literature review and a conceptual synthesis’, in System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability, ed. B. Elzen, F. Geels, K. Green, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 19–47.

 Google Scholar

Bosch, S.van den, and Rotmans, J. (2008), Deepening, broadening and scaling up. A framework for steering transition experiments, Knowledge Centre for Sustainable System Innovations and Transitions (KCT), publication no 2.

 Google Scholar

Bosch, S.van den. (2010), Transition Experiments: Exploring Societal Changes Towards Sustainability, Rotterdam: Erasmus University.

 Google Scholar

Kim, W., and Seong, J. (2010), ‘Catching-up and post catching-up strategies of latecomer firms: evidence from Samsung semiconductor’, Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 18, 115–142. (Text in Korean). doi: 10.1080/19761597.2010.9668695

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seong, J., and Song, W. (2010), ‘Post catch-up innovation and integrated innovation policy’, Science and Technology Studies, 10(2), 1–36. (Text in Korean).

 Google Scholar