TY - JOUR

T1 - Sustainability through institutional failure and decline?

T2 - Archetypes of productive pathways

AU - Newig, Jens

AU - Derwort, Pim

AU - Jager, Nicolas Wilhelm

N1 - Funding Information: We acknowledge funding by the Volkswagen-Stiftung and the Niedersä hsisches Ministerium für Wissenshaft und Kultur through the project “Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation: Institutions, People and Knowledge” (grant number A112269). We thank Rebekka Balsam for helpful discussions in an early phase of this manuscript. Publisher Copyright: © 2019 by the author(s).

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - Although current literature on sustainability governance and institutions is preoccupied with innovation, novelty, success, and “best practice,” there is an emergent tendency to consider decline and failure as opportunities and leverage points to work toward and to achieve sustainability. However, although failure, crisis, and decay have been treated extensively, the link toward their productivepotential has remained underdeveloped in the literature. Using a systems perspective, we described five archetypical pathways through which crisis, failure, deliberate destabilization, and active management of decline may facilitate sustainability transformation through adaptation, learning, providing windows of opportunity, and informed choices regarding stability versus change. We sought to providea basis for further conceptual and empirical inquiry by formulating archetypical pathways that link aspects of failure to productivefunctions in the sense of sustainability. We started out by describing five archetypical pathways and their conceptual underpinnings from a number of different literatures, including evolutionary economics, ecology, and institutional change. The pathways related to (1) crises triggering institutional adaptations toward sustainability, (2) systematic learning from failure and breakdown, (3) the purposeful destabilization of unsustainable institutions, (4) making a virtue of inevitable decline, and (5) active and reflective decision making in the face of decline instead of leaving it to chance. These archetypical pathways were illustrated by a number of sustainabilityrelated empirical case studies. In developing these archetypes, we have sought to move forward the debate on sustainability transformation and harness the potential of hitherto overlooked institutional dynamics.

AB - Although current literature on sustainability governance and institutions is preoccupied with innovation, novelty, success, and “best practice,” there is an emergent tendency to consider decline and failure as opportunities and leverage points to work toward and to achieve sustainability. However, although failure, crisis, and decay have been treated extensively, the link toward their productivepotential has remained underdeveloped in the literature. Using a systems perspective, we described five archetypical pathways through which crisis, failure, deliberate destabilization, and active management of decline may facilitate sustainability transformation through adaptation, learning, providing windows of opportunity, and informed choices regarding stability versus change. We sought to providea basis for further conceptual and empirical inquiry by formulating archetypical pathways that link aspects of failure to productivefunctions in the sense of sustainability. We started out by describing five archetypical pathways and their conceptual underpinnings from a number of different literatures, including evolutionary economics, ecology, and institutional change. The pathways related to (1) crises triggering institutional adaptations toward sustainability, (2) systematic learning from failure and breakdown, (3) the purposeful destabilization of unsustainable institutions, (4) making a virtue of inevitable decline, and (5) active and reflective decision making in the face of decline instead of leaving it to chance. These archetypical pathways were illustrated by a number of sustainabilityrelated empirical case studies. In developing these archetypes, we have sought to move forward the debate on sustainability transformation and harness the potential of hitherto overlooked institutional dynamics.

KW - Sustainability Science

KW - Politics

KW - collapse

KW - creative destruction

KW - dismantling

KW - experimentation

KW - policy transfer

KW - policy window

KW - renewal

KW - systems thinking

UR - https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss1/art18/

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065788558&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5751/ES-10700-240118

DO - 10.5751/ES-10700-240118

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 24

JO - Ecology and Society

JF - Ecology and Society

SN - 1708-3087

IS - 1

M1 - 18

ER -