Waste prevention and Pay as You Throw, a collective case ... - lumes

analysis of the transition to PAYT from a flat waste fee, but also identification of the larger ‘driving forces’ from
the National and EU level to encourage such a direction (Rotmans, 2001:16).
This project aims to explore the different policy drivers that can impact the direction and development of
waste policy. For this analysis, Transition Theory offers a framework for analyzing this evolution, as it identifies
three different levels of social organization for describing the dynamics of transitions to new systems
(Rotmans, 2001). The three levels are defined as micro, meso, and macro, or by Rips and Kemps (1998) as
niche, regime, and socio‐technical landscape (Rotmans, 2001:19). For the context of this project, the three
levels of social organization are defined as municipality, nation, and European Union.
Transition Theory also defines four different transition phases: pre‐development, “where the status quo does
not visibly change,” take‐off, when “the process of change gets under way [as] the state of the system begins
to shift,” acceleration, when “visible structural changes take place,” and stabilization, when “the speed of social
change finally decreases and a new dynamic equilibrium is reached” (See Figure 2‐1; Rotmans, 2001:17). In the
ideal transition: the “system adjusts itself successfully to the changing internal and external circumstances,
while achieving a higher order of organization and complexity” (Rotmans, 2005:24). The role government can
play changes throughout each phase of the transition process: during pre‐development it can assist as a
catalyst and director of change, during take‐off as a mobilizer of actors towards the objective, during
acceleration as a stimulator of learning objectives, and finally during stabilization as a guide to preventing
negative backlash (Rotmans, 2001:17).
The three system dimensions of a transition.
The four phases of a transition.
Figure 1‐2: Transition dimensions and phases. Source: Rotmans, 2001:17‐18.
There are some important limitations, however, to the role of government in this context: “transitions involve
a range of possible pathways…[that] government policy can influence, but never entirely control” (Rotmans,
2001:16). Further, there are a “number of external factors (landscape factors), such as the development of
energy prices and cultural values, over which government has only limited influence” (Rotmans, 2001:26). Part
of acknowledging this complexity involves integrating the perspectives of different disciplines to analyze the
transition. Rotmans (2005) identifies that “research into transitions is by definition multi‐disciplinary and
interdisciplinary” (ibid:4). As, “transitions and system innovations are complex phenomena that cannot be
entirely investigated from one scientific discipline” (ibid:19). As underlined by Max‐Neef (2005) the “major
challenges of our time cannot be tackled by one discipline.” In this way, this paper will aim to evaluate PAYT
using a multi‐disciplinary framework, by way of addressing the economic, social, and environmental factors
related to the policy’s use.
6