The difficulty in defining a field for the so-called institutional economics is the uncertainty of meaning of an institution. Sometimes an institution seems to mean a framework of laws or natural rights within which individuals act like inmates. Sometimes it seems to mean the behavior of the inmates themselves. Sometimes anything additional to or critical of the classical or hedonic economics is deemed to be institutional. Sometimes anything that is "economic behavior" is institutional. Sometimes anything that is "dynamic" instead of "static," or a "process" instead of commodities, or activity instead of feelings, or mass action instead of individual action, or management instead of equilibrium, or control instead of laissez faire, seems to be institutional economics.

On Institutional Economics

While there is a lot of literature from a natural or technical sciences perspective on different forms of digitalization in agriculture (big data, internet of things, augmented reality, robotics, sensors, 3D printing, system integration, ubiquitous connectivity, artificial intelligence, digital twins, and blockchain among others), social science researchers have recently started investigating different aspects of digital agriculture in relation to farm production systems, value chains and food systems. This has led to a burgeoning but scattered social science body of literature. There is hence lack of overview of how this field of study is developing, and what are established, emerging, and new themes and topics. This is where this article aims to make a contribution, beyond introducing this special issue which presents seventeen articles dealing with social, economic and institutional dynamics of precision farming, digital agriculture, smart farming or agriculture 4.0. An exploratory literature review shows that five thematic clusters of extant social science literature on digitalization in agriculture can be identified: 1) Adoption, uses and adaptation of digital technologies on farm; 2) Effects of digitalization on farmer identity, farmer skills, and farm work; 3) Power, ownership, privacy and ethics in digitalizing agricultural production systems and value chains; 4) Digitalization and agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (AKIS); and 5) Economics and management of digitalized agricultural production systems and value chains. The main contributions of the special issue articles are mapped against these thematic clusters, revealing new insights on the link between digital agriculture and farm diversity, new economic, business and institutional arrangements both on-farm, in the value chain and food system, and in the innovation system, and emerging ways to ethically govern digital agriculture. Emerging lines of social science enquiry within these thematic clusters are identified and new lines are suggested to create a future research agenda on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0. Also, four potential new thematic social science clusters are also identified, which so far seem weakly developed: 1) Digital agriculture socio-cyber-physical-ecological systems conceptualizations; 2) Digital agriculture policy processes; 3) Digitally enabled agricultural transition pathways; and 4) Global geography of digital agriculture development. This future research agenda provides ample scope for future interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary science on precision farming, digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0.

A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda

In this chapter, we challenge the presupposed concept of innovation in the responsible innovation literature. As a first step, we raise several questions with regard to the possibility of ‘responsible’ innovation and point at several difficulties which undermine the supposedly responsible character of innovation processes, based on an analysis of the input, throughput and output of innovation processes. It becomes clear that the practical applicability of the concept of responsible innovation is highly problematic and that a more thorough inquiry of the concept is required. As a second step, we analyze the concept of innovation which is self-evidently presupposed in current literature on responsible innovation. It becomes clear that innovation is self-evidently seen as (1) technological innovation, (2) is primarily perceived from an economic perspective, (3) is inherently good and (4) presupposes a symmetry between moral agents and moral addressees. By challenging this narrow and uncritical concept of innovation, we contribute to a second round of theorizing about the concept and provide a research agenda for future research in order to enhance a less naive concept of responsible innovation.

/pdf/the-emerging-concept-of-responsible-innovation-three-reasons-3vlw9spky9.pdf

The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation

This article reviews the literature on the geopolitics of renewable energy. It finds that while the roots of this literature can be traced back to the 1970s and 1980s, most of it has been published from 2010 onwards. The following aggregate conclusions are extracted from the literature: renewable energy has many advantages over fossil fuels for international security and peace; however, renewable energy is thought to exacerbate security risks and geopolitical tensions related to critical materials and cybersecurity; former hydrocarbon exporters will likely be the greatest losers from the energy transition. Many of the reviewed publications share some weaknesses: a failure to define “geopolitics”; an unwarranted assumption that very little has been published in the field previously; limited use of established forecasting, scenario-building or foresight methodologies; a lack of recognition of the complexity of the field; a lack of theorisation. Most authors do not distinguish between the geopolitical risks associated with different types of renewable energy, and only a few distinguish clearly between the geopolitics of the transitional phase and the geopolitics of a post-energy transition world. A disproportionately large part of the literature is dedicated to critical materials and cybersecurity, while only a small part concerns the decline of former fossil fuel powers. Among those publications that do discuss the decline of fossil fuels, there is also an over-focus on oil producers and a lack of attention to the countries that rely heavily on coal, for example Australia, China, Germany, Indonesia, Poland and the United States.

/pdf/renewable-energy-and-geopolitics-a-review-2hm3gyy9u6.pdf

Renewable energy and geopolitics: A review

As the pace of augmented reality (AR) adoption quickens, cultural heritage sites have begun to focus on the opportunities provided by this new and innovative technology. However, small organizations often fear making large investments in AR without a proof of concept due to the risk of failure. Therefore, it is imperative to explore the perceived value of AR from multiple stakeholders’ perspectives to ensure the long-term viability of technological innovations in small cultural heritage organizations. The present study uses a small museum in the UK to explore the perceived value of the implementation of AR within the museum context using a stakeholder approach. Qualitative data were gathered from twenty-four stakeholders via focus groups and interviews. This case study shows that AR has economic, experiential, social, epistemic, cultural and historical, and educational value from both internal and external stakeholders’ perspectives. AR is considered to be a way to preserve history, enhance visitor satisfaction, generate positive word-of-mouth, attract new target markets and contribute to a positive learning experience. This paper contributes to the knowledge gap in the area of stakeholders’ perceived value of AR for cultural heritage tourism.

/pdf/value-of-augmented-reality-at-cultural-heritage-sites-a-yna9r2vegu.pdf

Value of Augmented Reality at Cultural Heritage Sites: A Stakeholder Approach

This article has a theoretical and a practical objective. The theoretical objective is to conceptualize responsible innovation as the adequate and timely inclusion of public values relevant to technological development. Technological innovations always occur in a specific institutional context, closely connected to stakeholder dynamics. Hence, an ideal approach to responsible innovation requires interdisciplinary research that incorporates: (i) the ethics of technology, to investigate the role of values in design; (ii) institutional theory, to understand the parts played by institutions in realizing values; and (iii) policy, planning and science, technology and society literature, to focus on stakeholder engagement. The practical objective is to explain how this approach can be operationalized. Since values emerge and evolve during the development and implementation of technologies, we take public debate to be the empirical source for extracting public values. Several salient questions need to be addresse...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23299460.2014.882072

Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: the need for interdisciplinary research

The introduction of new energy technologies may lead to public resistance and contestation. It is often argued that this phenomenon is caused by an inadequate inclusion of relevant public values in the design of technology. In this paper we examine the applicability of the value sensitive design (VSD) approach. While VSD was primarily introduced for incorporating values in technological design, our focus in this paper is expanded towards the design of the institutions surrounding these technologies, as well as the design of stakeholder participation. One important methodological challenge of VSD is to identify the relevant values related to new technological developments. In this paper, we argue that the public debate can form a rich source from which to retrieve the values at stake. To demonstrate this, we have examined the arguments used in the public debate regarding the exploration and exploitation of shale gas in the Netherlands. We identified two important sets of the underlying values, namely substantive and procedural values. This paper concludes with two key findings. Firstly, contrary to what is often suggested in the literature, both proponents and opponents seem to endorse the same values. Secondly, contestation seems to arise in the precise operationalization of these values among the different stakeholders. In other words, contestation in the Dutch shale gas debate does not arise from inter-value conflict but rather from intra-value conflicts. This multi-interpretability should be incorporated in VSD processes.

/pdf/contested-technologies-and-design-for-values-the-case-of-3r2kiommnm.pdf

Contested Technologies and Design for Values: The Case of Shale Gas

Projects that deal with unconventional ways to produce, store, or transport energy often give rise to resistance by local communities. The value-laden basis of such resistance is often ignored by decision makers. This chapter operationalizes the concept of Responsible Innovation by using and adapting the approach of value sensitive design. This approach holds that the variety of stakeholders’ values might be taken as a point of departure for the (re)design of a technological system in such a way that divergent values can be accommodated. The scope of value sensitive design can be extended beyond the technology, however. Values are also embedded in the institutional context and in the processes of interaction between stakeholders. Hence, the prevention of controversies over conflicting values may be pursued by redesigning the institutional context, and by taking the dynamics of stakeholder interaction explicitly into account.

Responsible Innovation in Energy Projects: Values in the Design of Technologies, Institutions and Stakeholder Interactions

In 2010 an initiative was launched to realize a competitive single EU market for natural gas through the use of a future vision. This Gas Target Model (GTM) aimed to provide direction for concrete market development through regulatory structures as well as an overarching scope of what a functioning gas market would entail. This paper assesses the use and impact of such sectoral visions. We develop a framework that builds on the sociology of expectations and foresight studies and distinguish between the envisioning process, vision content, and vision use (output). The analysis follows the development of two versions of the GTM: 2011 and 2015. We find that the GTM has a contradictory nature. The vision that feeds into regulatory structures requires a stable and uniform rule set. The overarching vision requires incorporation of long-term uncertainty and adaptability. Moreover, the sectoral focus requires alignment to adjacent sectors and wider policy considerations. This makes it difficult to set boundaries, to identify relevant actors, and to ensure commitment from these actors. We conclude that the former vision was actively pursued and materialized in Framework Guidelines and Network Codes, while the latter vision is just being identified and framed.

/pdf/governing-through-visions-evaluating-the-performativity-of-18o829q9mo.pdf

Governing through visions: Evaluating the performativity of the European gas target models

Our fossil fuel energy system is in transition towards a renewable energy infrastructure. This implies that it is changing fundamentally into a new system with other institutional arrangements, infrastructures, habits, and routines. This chapter focuses on the institutional and infrastructure developments related to this transition. The Third Energy Package aimed to create one single EU electricity market. This implies that the level of high voltage lanes and the level of solar panels on the roofs of homes are parts of a single future EU electricity market. This chapter assesses how these different levels develop and whether and how synergy is created. To do so, this chapter analyses the visions of a future renewable electricity system and maps those against actual developments. It concludes that renewable energy developments on the different levels are rapidly ongoing without reflectivity regarding the consequences of design choices on the long-term. Short-term policy ambitions guide these developments. Embedding in a wider and coherent vision could facilitate more deliberate action. Distributed and centralized aspects of the electricity system need integration. The short-term developments do not necessarily result in the best system on the long-term. The guidance and reflection of a vision can help to identify relevant actors, coordination issues, and help to deliver a more robust renewable future energy system.

M. Dignum

Papers

Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: the need for interdisciplinary research

Contested Technologies and Design for Values: The Case of Shale Gas

Responsible Innovation in Energy Projects: Values in the Design of Technologies, Institutions and Stakeholder Interactions

Governing through visions: Evaluating the performativity of the European gas target models

Connecting Visions of a Future Renewable Energy Grid