We have written before about the notion of technological revolutions (e.g. the steam engine, electricity or IT) and how these revolutions, for better or worse, have radically reshaped the economy, society and our everyday lives. In a recent paper, scholars now argue that these subsequent revolutions can also be regarded as a single “Deep Transition” to industrial modernity. Moreover, they claim that we are on the brink of the next Deep Transition to a more inclusive and sustainable economy.
The basic tenet of the Deep Transition framework is that seemingly separate historical technological revolutions can share a single directionality. Looking back, we have seen waves of change that may have looked different (i.e. driven by distinct technologies), but in reality, they shared an underlying principle of a “relentless emphasis on productivity growth”. In the process, persistent societal problems emerged, or existing ones worsened, which are now deeply entrenched in current modes of (mass) production, distribution and consumption.To solve these problems, the authors argue, change is needed on a similar scale and with a similar depth. More precisely, instead of “mass-production for global markets” we need “socially useful and craft-based production for local markets”, today’s “linear resource-intensive economy based on the use of fossil fuels” must give way to a “circular waste-free economy based on the use of organic materials” and instead of individual modes of consumption we need more collective forms of consumption.In the current stage of development, many of today’s efforts to realize these grand ambitions are still organized on the level of individual systems; renewable electricity in the energy system, electrification in the mobility system or local sharing platforms for household items. These system-level transitions are worthwhile in their own right, but in order to truly make a difference they cannot (and will not) remain isolated from each other. While they are already driven by a shared set of factors (e.g. societal or political pressure), they will also add to an overarching set of (written and unwritten) economic and societal meta-rules (e.g. the circular economy). Such new rules are necessary, since the existing rule-set is geared towards the very technologies and solutions that created the problems in the first place. These old rules thus block the widespread adoption of technologies, business models and forms of consumption that may solve the problems of the first Deep Transition.While the notion of Deep Transitions and the characterization of the first one is quite convincing, it is less obvious why the next Transition would indeed take place along the lines sketched by the authors. The authors acknowledge this uncertainty and point out that there is always competition between diverging solutions or (meta-)rules and their proponents (e.g. states or businesses). Moreover, exogeneous events or shocks like wars or natural disasters may very well change the course of a Deep Transition. For instance, the authors argue that WWII provided a massive stimulus for the industrial modernization of Europe. We could well imagine how a major climate-related catastrophe could radically change our thinking, but at the same time we could also see how a new global conflict could lead nations and industries to abandon all efforts towards equality and sustainability in favor of short-term thinking along the lines of the old, problematic, rule-set.
