What I meant so far by the concept of transition referred to qualitative change, i.e. the transition from conventional ideas and practice to new paradigms. However, if it wants to succeed in that endeavor, the movement will have to create a critical mass of support and, therefore, carefully consider the quantitative dimensions of its mission. Realizing transitions therefore requires much attention to scaling issues and in particular the question of upscaling innovations.
I want to reiterate that it is not self-evident that local innovations will quickly and efficiently find their way to other levels and be applied on a large scale. One will have to look very consciously at the kind of scenario and strategies for scaling up to be pursued.
I lack insight into how current parties in the transition movement deal with this issue – whether and how, for example, local project initiatives bear any relationship with sectoral large-scale initiatives. With the proviso, therefore, that much of what I note below is already being put into practice, I would like to draw again comparison between programmatic and transition thinking, this time how they both relate to issues of scale.
They depart from the same premises, assuming that transitions should vary in terms of content and structure, i.e. should be shaped differently contingent on the level and scale of the intervention. Each level or size of scale brings its own perspective and dynamics and sets its own requirements, which should have implications for the kind of formats chosen and methods selected for bringing about social change.
Transitions should be conceived as very specific tailor-made processses of change. Just as the total transition process requires an overarching perspective with due attention over time for cross-connections between specific processes and other more overall initiatives.
They both affirm the evolving and cumulative nature of transition processes that ultimately should lead to setting a new paradigm for society as a whole.
In other words, the development program concept is eminently suitable for helping to realize change and scale up innovations within the larger institutional field, as understood by the transition movement.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I have previously considered the benefits of the medium-sized scale on which social development programs demonstrate their effectiveness .
The transition movement seems to be fully aware of the significance of bestowing its influence on those who operate at the meso level. The emerging Dutch movement ‘Transitie Nederland’ and its adherents can easily identify with the ideas of a scholar such as Benjamin Barber who advocates for solving problems and bringing about change at the level of great metropolitan areas.
I refer back to my metaphor about programs that seek their way within the social landscape by pursuing a certain itinerary including various pathways drawn on the road map. For the transition movement some of the main pathways should run along a number of intermediate posts (cities or regions) where the journey toward a final destination is taking shape and starting to crystallize.
From a national perspective, urban regions and cities represent a self-governing body operating at a decentralized level. Because it affects their immediate living conditions, its citizens take a genuine interest in urban affairs and want to exert influence on urban politics. Cities provide a good ground for participatory forms of democracy.
At meso level, chemistry may easily arise between pragmatically oriented city authorities and ideologically inspired citizens. The more so in cities where authorities grasp the need to be innovative and push for transition processes that they believe will deeply and positively affect its infrastructure and the wellbeing of its citizens. The more so in cities where its authorities are aware of the need to commit its citizens to multiple forms of public-private collaboration and thus gain momentum for further socio-economic change.
By the same token, cities are eager to establish forms of mutual cooperation with other urban regions, i.e. to see themselves as the most important engines for change at a national and international level. Development programs, or a transition movement for that matter, that operates at a medium scale is capable of incorporating both small scale and large scale dimensions of processes of change and thus bridging the gap between micro and macro.
At the metropolitan level, there is more than just affinity between the two concepts - without coinciding altogether, they clearly overlap in the many ways how to build a critical mass of support for transition goals.
Both development programs and transition movement represent forms of Dynamic Quality that concur with the characteristics of urban regions – being compact but flexible at the same time, pursuing an open but also coherent and system-oriented approach.
At meso level, one hardly runs a risk of working in isolation and pursuing atypical developments (micro level), or experiencing major bureaucratic hurdles that would slow down the level of progress (macro level).
Similarly, they both claim that the best options for the private sector to thrive and ultimately become a decisive factor in change processes can be found at meso level.
Finally, in this kind of setting both human values and system values can be honored. The urge felt to make leeway for its citizens to contribute to a new social fabric, can go hand in hand with the pursuit of efficiency and accountability based on a planned approach toward transition.
Or, as it would sound in my roadmap metaphor, while the traveler insists on following new alternative paths, he will still ask for a carefully planned itinerary and timely arrival.
With this note I round off my narrative until further notice, i.e. I am currently preparing a series of notes in which I will discuss the core values that lie behind programmatic thinking.