Bridging incompatible regimes: how the formation of intermediary regimes drives system innovation

System innovations, which comprise changes in socio-technical networks, rules and routines governing particular fields of practice, are generally regarded as essential to a transition towards sustainability. Various researchers have tried to unravel the pathways of system innovations in order to understand how these innovations can be stimulated or facilitated as part of transition management. This chapter aims to contribute to knowledge on system innovation pathways by studying the development of care farming as a cross-sector system innovation. Care farming is a rapidly expanding form of multifunctional agriculture that combines agricultural production with an offer of day-care to a diversity of clients. It emerged when a few pioneers started to provide care services at their farms and successfully integrated the different regimes governing the rather distinct fields of agriculture and care. Since then, the number of care farms has increased substantially. A new intermediate care farming regime has evolved, comprising new rules and routines, and embedded in regionally and nationally organized care farmer networks that are increasingly acknowledged by the healthcare sector. Our findings suggest that, at niche level, farmer strategies of (individual and collective) alignment and self-empowerment facilitate the development and maturing of a new regime. At regime level, supporting pioneers, creating room for experimentation, and looking beyond sector borders are factors that contribute to the successful realization of system innovations.

[1]  Dirk Roep,et al.  Vernieuwend werken, sporen van vermogen en onvermogen , 2000 .

[2]  F. Geels Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study , 2002 .

[3]  R. Hirasing,et al.  Volksgezondheid en gezondheidszorg , 2012 .

[4]  J. D. Ploeg Agricultural production in crisis , 2006 .

[5]  Anton Zijderveld,et al.  The Institutional Imperative: The Interface of Institutions and Networks , 2000 .

[6]  Gianluca Brunori,et al.  Multifunctionality and rural development: a multilevel approach. , 2003 .

[7]  Adrian Smith,et al.  The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions , 2005 .

[8]  Richard B. Saltman,et al.  Patient Choice and Patient Empowerment in Northern European Health Systems: A Conceptual Framework , 1994, International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation.

[9]  F. Geels Technological Transitions And System Innovations: A Co-evolutionary And Socio-technical Analysis , 2005 .

[10]  F. Geels From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory , 2004 .

[11]  F. Geels Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective , 2005 .

[12]  D. Roep,et al.  Managing technical-institutional design processes: some strategic lessons from environmental co-operatives in the Netherlands , 2003 .

[13]  F. Geels Technological transitions and system innovations , 2005 .

[14]  Effects of Intensification of Agriculture on Nature and Landscape in the Netherlands , 2006 .

[15]  M. Muijen,et al.  The components of good community care for people with severe mental illnesses: views of stakeholders in five European countries. , 2005, Psychiatric rehabilitation journal.

[16]  Johannes S. C. Wiskerke,et al.  Seeds of transition: essays on novelty production, niches and regimes in agriculture. , 2004 .

[17]  F. Geels,et al.  Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways , 2007 .

[18]  Joshua Graff Zivin,et al.  Uncertainty and Technological Change in Medicine , 2001, Journal of health politics, policy and law.

[19]  Dirk Roep,et al.  Multifunctionality and rural development: the actual situation in Europe , 2003 .

[20]  M. Hajer Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void , 2003 .

[21]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Uncertainty and technological change , 1996 .

[22]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Uncertainty and technological change , 1996 .

[23]  D. Roep,et al.  Reflecting on Novelty Production and Niche Management in Agriculture , 2004 .

[24]  Martin McKee,et al.  Health care systems in transition , 2002 .

[25]  J. Hodges,et al.  Livestock, ethics, and quality of life. , 1999, Journal of animal science.

[26]  E. Shils The Constitution Of Society , 1982 .

[27]  K. Green,et al.  System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability , 2004 .

[28]  Arie Rip,et al.  Technological Change , 2019, World Development Report 2020: Trading for Development in the Age of Global Value Chains.

[29]  A. Giddens The Constitution of Society , 1985 .

[30]  D. Roep Vernieuwend werken : sporen van vermogen en onvermogen : een socio-materiële studie over vernieuwing in de landbouw uitgewerkt voor de westelijke veenweidegebieden , 2000 .

[31]  D. Roep,et al.  Definitions, references and interpretations of the concept of multifunctionality in The Netherlands , 2006 .

[32]  J. Hassink,et al.  Current status and potential of care farms in the Netherlands , 2007 .

[33]  J. Schols,et al.  Day care for demented elderly in a dairy farm setting: positive first impressions. , 2006, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association.

[34]  Frans Berkhout,et al.  Socio-Technological Regimes and Transition Contexts , 2004 .

[35]  J. Moynagh EU REGULATION AND CONSUMER DEMAND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE , 2000 .

[36]  Valérie Paris,et al.  Health care systems in transition: France , 2004 .