Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Innovation Policy Studies Dep., National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran.
2 Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
This paper analyzes the life cycle of Iran's wind energy innovation system through a co-evolutionary framework that examines the interplay between the system and its contextual environment. Our analysis reveals that the system is transitioning from formation to growth, but remains vulnerable due to its high dependence on contextual factors. By examining three historical phases, we demonstrate how political, geographical, and sectoral contexts have critically influenced the system's development trajectory. The research identifies key systemic problems across functional, structural, and contextual dimensions, showing how their dynamics have either facilitated or hindered growth. Based on these findings, we propose policy recommendations focused on infrastructure stabilization, institutional support, and contextual management to overcome barriers and enhance the system's resilience and performance. This co-evolutionary perspective offers policymakers a novel framework for understanding and addressing the complex challenges facing renewable energy innovation systems.
Keywords
Main Subjects
[1] Edsand, H.-E. J. (2019). Technological innovation system and the wider context: A framework for developing countries. Technology in Society, 58, 101150.
[2] Markard, J. (2020). The life cycle of technological innovation systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119407.
[3] Han, S., Peng, D., Guo, Y., Wang, D., Zhou, Y., & Wang, Y. (2025). Harnessing technological innovation and renewable energy and their impact on environmental pollution in G-20 countries. Scientific Reports, 15, 2236.
[4] Geels, F. W. & Penna, C. C. (2015). Societal problems and industry reorientation: Elaborating the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model and a case study of car safety in the USA (1900–1995). Research Policy, 44, 67-82.
[5] Binz, C., Harris-Lovett, S., Kiparsky, M., Sedlak, D. L. & Truffer, B. (2016). The thorny road to technology legitimation—Institutional work for potable water reuse in California. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103, 249-263.
[6] Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S. & Rickne, A. (2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy, 37, 407-429.
[7] Markard, J., Hekkert, M. & Jacobsson, S. (2015). The technological innovation systems framework: Response to six criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 16, 76-86.
[8] Edsand, H.-E. J. (2019). Technological innovation system and the wider context: A framework for developing countries. Technology in Society, 58, 101150.
[9] Markard, J. & Hoffmann, V. H. (2016). Analysis of complementarities: Framework and examples from the energy transition. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111, 63-75.
[10] Arlsson, B. & Stankiewicz, R. (1991). On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1, 93-118.
[11] Binz, C., Truffer, B. & Coenen, L. (2014). Why space matters in technological innovation systems—Mapping global knowledge dynamics of membrane bioreactor technology. Research Policy, 43, 138-155.
[12] Egro, S. O., Hekkert, M. P. & Smits, R. E. (2007). Explaining the failure of the Dutch innovation system for biomass digestion—a functional analysis. Energy Policy, 35, 925-938.
[13] Negro, S. O. & Hekkert, M. P. (2008). Explaining the success of emerging technologies by innovation system functioning: the case of biomass digestion in Germany. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20, 465-482.
[14] Wieczorek, A. J. & Hekkert, M. P. (2012). Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Science and Public Policy, 39, 74-87.
[15] Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National innovation system: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter, London.
[16] Jacobsson, S. & Bergek, A. (2011). Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: Contributions and suggestions for research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1, 41-57.
[17] Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions, and organizations. Psychology Press.
[18] Malerba, F. (2004). Sectoral systems of innovation: concepts, issues and analyses of six major European sectors. Cambridge University Press.
[19] Crawford, S. E. & Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89, 582-600.
[20] Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S. & Smits, R. E. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 413-432.
[21] Wieczorek, A. J., Hekkert, M. P., Coenen, L. & Harmsen, R. (2015). Broadening the national focus in technological innovation system analysis: The case of offshore wind. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 14, 128-148.
[22] Sabatier, P. A. (2006). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (theoretical lenses on public policy).
[23] Tushman, M. L. (1992). Organizational determinants of technological change: toward a sociology of technological evolution. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 311-347.
[24] Anderson, P. & Tushman, M. L. (2018). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Organizational Innovation. Routledge.
[25] Taylor, M. & Taylor, A. (2012). The technology life cycle: Conceptualization and managerial implications. International Journal of Production Economics, 140, 541-553.
[26] Murmann, J. P. & Frenken, K. (2006). Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Research Policy, 35, 925-952.
[27] Utterback, J. M. & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3, 639-656.
[28] Nelson, R. R. (1995). Co–evolution of industry structure, technology and supporting institutions, and comparative advantage-making. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 2, 171-184.
[29] Kaplan, S. & Tripsas, M. (2008). Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change. Research Policy, 37, 790-805.
[30] Ukoba, K., Olatunji, K. O., Adeoye, E., Jen, T.-C., & Madyira, D. M. (2024). Optimizing renewable energy systems through artificial intelligence: Review and future prospects. Energy Research & Social Science, 125, 111256293.
[31] Wirth, S., Markard, J., Truffer, B. & Rohracher, H. (2013). Informal institutions matter: Professional culture and the development of biogas technology. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 8, 20-41.
[32] Musiolik, J. & Markard, J. (2011). Creating and shaping innovation systems: Formal networks in the innovation system for stationary fuel cells in Germany. Energy Policy, 39, 1909-1922.
[33] Konrad, K., Markard, J., Ruef, A. & Truffer, B. (2012). Strategic responses to fuel cell hype and disappointment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 1084-1098.
[34] Rosenbloom, D., Berton, H. & Meadowcroft, J. (2016). Framing the sun: A discursive approach to understanding multi-dimensional interactions within socio-technical transitions through the case of solar electricity in Ontario, Canada. Research Policy, 45, 1275-1290.
[35] Hellsmark, H. & Jacobsson, S. (2009). Opportunities for and limits to academics as system builders—the case of realizing the potential of gasified biomass in Austria. Energy Policy, 37, 5597-5611.
[36] Musiolik, J., Markard, J., Hekkert, M. & Furrer, B. (2020). Creating innovation systems: How resource constellations affect the strategies of system builders. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119209.
[37] Lauber, V. & Jacobsson, S. (2016). The politics and economics of constructing, contesting and restricting socio-political space for renewables–The German Renewable Energy Act. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 147-163.
[38] Andersen, A. D. & Markard, J. (2017). Innovating incumbents and technological complementarities: How recent dynamics in the HVDC industry can inform transition theories. Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
[39] Bergek, A. & Jacobsson, S. (2003). The emergence of a growth industry: a comparative analysis of the German, Dutch and Swedish wind turbine industries. Change, transformation and development. Springer.
[40] Negro, S. O., Hekkert, M. P. & Smits, R. E. (2007). Explaining the failure of the Dutch innovation system for biomass digestion—a functional analysis. Energy Policy, 35, 925-938.
[41] Jacobsson, S. (2008). The emergence and troubled growth of a 'biopower' innovation system in Sweden. Energy Policy, 36, 1491-1508.
[42] Chen, Y., & Song, J. (2023). The Technological Innovation Efficiency of China's Renewable Energy Enterprises: An Estimation Based on a Three-Stage DEA Model. Sustainability, 15(8), 6342.
[43] Denzin, N. K. (2017). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. Routledge.
[44] Jacobsson, S. & Oskarsson, C. (1995). Educational statistics as an indicator of technological activity. Research Policy, 24, 127-136.
[45] Markard, J. & Truffer, B. (2008). Actor-oriented analysis of innovation systems: exploring micro–meso level linkages in the case of stationary fuel cells. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20, 443-464.
[46] Truffer, B., Rohracher, H. & Markard, J. (2009). The Analysis of Institutions in Technological Innovation Systems-A conceptual framework applied to biogas development in Austria. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School, 7.
[47] Powell, W. W. & Grodal, S. (2005). Networks of innovators. The Oxford handbook of innovation, 78.
[48] Musiolik, J., Markard, J. & Hekkert, M. (2012). Networks and network resources in technological innovation systems: Towards a conceptual framework for system building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 1032-1048.
[49] Markard, J., Raven, R. & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41, 955-967.
[50] Jacobsson, S. & Johnson, A. (2000). The diffusion of renewable energy technology: An analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy, 28, 625-640.
[51] Chaminade, C. & Edquist, C. (2010). Rationales for public policy intervention in the innovation process: A systems of innovation approach. The theory and practice of innovation policy. An international research handbook, 95-114.
[52] Smits, R. & Kuhlmann, S. (2004). The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1, 4-32.
[53] Carlsson, B. (2006). Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 35, 56-67.
[54] Sirin, S. M., & Ege, A. (2012). Overcoming problems in Turkey's renewable energy policy: How can EU contribute? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(7), 4917-4926.
[55] Karatayev, M., Hall, S., Kalyuzhnova, Y., & Clarke, M. L. (2016). Renewable energy technology uptake in Kazakhstan: Policy drivers and barriers in a transitional economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 66, 120-136.
[56] Fadly, D. (2019). Low-carbon transition: Private sector investment in renewable energy projects in developing countries. World Development, 122, 552-569.
[57] Lilliestam, J., Ollier, L., Labordena, M., Pfenninger, S., & Thonig, R. (2021). The near- to mid-term outlook for concentrating solar power: Mostly cloudy, chance of sun. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 16(1), 23-41.
[58] Luomi, M. (2016). The Gulf Monarchies and Climate Change: Abu Dhabi and Qatar in an Era of Natural Unsustainability. Oxford University Press.
)