Historically, humanity has witnessed local and global, qualitative and quantitative energy transitions, with the first global qualitative energy transition taking place between the 17th and 19th centuries—shifting from wood to coal as a source of energy in the first industrial revolution. The second global qualitative energy transition occurred at the beginning of the 20th century when oil replaced coal, becoming the major energy source of the world energy mix of which coal still remains a component (Solomon & Krishna, 2011, p. 7424). Based on human history and the literature dealing with energy transitions, it can be concluded that energy transitions take place when a number of the following factors are present:
A depletion of the energy source;
An increase in the price of the dominant energy as a result of the first factor;
The existence of environmental and/or health consequences of the energy used, as for example happened with coal at the end of the 19th century;
The introduction of a new source of energy that is price competitive and more efficient than the existing dominant source of energy, as happened at the beginning of the 20th century when oil replaced coal; New geopolitical and economic factors that influence national security. The 1973 oil crisis was the result of the oil embargo imposed by the Arab oil exporting countries on the major consumers represented by the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan for their support to Israel. As a result of the embargo, the price of oil suddenly increased by 70% on the world energy markets and was one of the reasons that led the world economy into a period of economic recession10. The significant increase in the price of oil has burdened the budget of all the importing countries of oil and petroleum fuels, which ultimately led to new policies for saving energy through a wiser and more economic consumption of energy at an individual micro-level and a more efficient energy system at the macro-level. In addition, a number of new measures and policies were implemented in order to decrease the dependency on oil through the development of alternative and/or renewable energy sources. In this respect, the Brazilian and French experiences are considered the most prominent of successful qualitative energy transitions in the twentieth century. The U.S. has also launched a policy for a qualitative energy transition following the 1973 oil crisis, The Independence Project, but it did not lead to a successful outcome.
In the academic literature, the term ‘transition’ has been mainly used in the context of research conducted about sustainable development. The first book containing both terms was published in 1998 under the title The Politics of
Agenda 21 in Europe, edited by Timothey O’Riordan and Heather Voisey, and
followed by two other books under the titles Our Common Journey: A Transition
10
It is very difficult to identify the real reasons that have led to the economic recession after the oil crisis of 1973, as it was concomitant to a number of monetary and financial policies implemented in western countries, which had an aggravating role.
Toward Sustainability, published in 1999 by the U.S. National Research Council,
and Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Transition, edited by Jurgan Schmandt and C.H. Ward in 2000 (Kemp, 2010, pp. 291-292). At this stage, the term ‘transition’ is used in order to describe a general process without any theoretical background. However, in the last decade and more, as a result of historical studies dealing with past energy transitions, a number of descriptive models and concepts have been developed in order to propose a general theory explaining the transitions processes. In this respect, a system level theory emerged, known as the multilevel perspective (MLP), which included concepts drawn from ecology (niches, landscapes), political science (regimes), and evolutionary biology (evolution, selection) (Hughes, 2009b, p. 1). In the literature, the MLP gradually emerged from a number of studies: Kemp et al. (1998), Rotmans, Kemp, & van Asselt (2001); Geels (2002, 2004, 2005a, b, 2006); Perez (2002), Berkhout et al. (2003); Smith et al. (2005); Grin (2006); Kemp, Rotmans, and Loorbach (2007); Geels and Schot (2007); Melosi (2010); Solomon and Krishna (2011). The theory about transitions that emerged from this debate was concerned with transformative change where multiple levels and drivers interact and mutually influence each other in a transition process, and represented a major shift from the traditional perspective of transitions based on a single and linear causality as a result of a ‘technological push’.
Transitions theory emerged from the need for a general framework in order to understand the processes through which significant technological and social transformations take place in a given society. Indeed, a transition from present energy sources to new alternative energy sources implies that a paradigm shift will occur (Nader, Cesarino, & Hebdon, 2010, p. 1) and involve political, economic, and security issues that are fundamentally political in nature (Nader, et al., 2010, p. 3). As noted by Melosi, through the examination of the mechanism of change we can reach the conclusion that “potentially, energy transitions can help to clarify how energy development and use influences and is influenced by the technical, economic, political, environmental and social forces that shape society” (2010, p. 45). Finally, “if history teaches us anything on this subject it is that energy transitions are not simply exercises in swapping fuels and technologies, but disruptive events with the potential to remake societies in fundamental ways”
(Melosi, 2010, p. 58). It is based on this historical conclusion that the multilevel perspective (MLP) was developed as an ‘appreciative theory’ (Nelson & Winter, 1982, as cited in Geels, 2002, p. 1259) that integrates findings from different literatures (Geels, 2002, p. 1259).
Transition studies have used different approaches, and the more frequently used can be summarized as the following: the multilevel perspective (MLP); strategic niche management (SNM); transition management (TM); innovation systems (IS); techno-economic paradigm (TEP); and socio-metabolic transitions (Lachman, 2013, p. 270) approach. The strategic niche management approach (SNM) shares some elements of the multilevel perspective (MLP) and focuses on the niche level and the necessary conditions for a technological niche to operate a breakthrough in the regime level. The transition management (TM) approach is interested in the management aspect of a transition and how to influence the speed and direction of a transition process. The TM approach has proven to be difficult to implement despite its theoretical attractiveness (Lachman, 2013, p. 272). The innovation systems (IS) approach developed in the mid-1980s seeks to uncover the bottlenecks in a transition process by breaking down the system into its constituents and “tends to marginalize cultural and demand side aspects” (Lachman, 2013, p. 273). The techno-economic paradigm (TEP) approach, based on the long wave theory, is a macro view that comprises the whole economy and “argues that major technological shifts are the basis of macro-economic cyclical movements, and together with this shift in technology, the other subsystems within society co-evolve” (Lachman, 2013, p. 273). The TEP approach has been mainly criticized for its deterministic understanding of macro-economic phenomena and for its incapacity to determine the causes of long wave cycles (Geels 2006; van den Bergh & Oosterhius, 2008, as cited in Lachman, 2013, p. 273). Finally, the socio-metabolic approach focuses on a society’s general metabolism for studying transitions, but without including the actors and their background represented by their culture, belief systems and political interests (Lachman, 2013, p. 274). Comparatively to the above mentioned approaches, the MLP has been considered as encompassing all the factors relevant in a transition process, and a powerful tool for policy-makers as it “does not employ linear
cause-and-effect relationships or simple drivers . . . [and] is well suited to study uncertain and messy processes such as transitions” (Geels, 2012, p. 474).
Based on these arguments, and as far as this research is concerned, the choice has been made to rely on the MLP approach in order to study energy transitions in the context of the GCC countries with a futures perspective. The section below will expand further on the MLP approach and its relevance to this research project.