23.1 Introduction
Sustainability transitions (ST), as an interdisciplinary field for studying societal change, has popularised globally since the early 2000s. The theory appeals to scholars and practitioners alike, as a systematic way of understanding shifts in technologies, policies, markets and culture, as well as provides useful heuristics for mobilising a variety of societal actors for taking action on climate change mitigation (IPCC, 2023) and just transitions (Swilling, Reference Swilling2020; Avelino et al., Reference Avelino, Wijsman, van Steenbergen, Jhagroe, Wittmayer, Akerboom and Kalfagianni2024). Although in recent years, it has impressively become a globally known research field, the conceptual origins and dominant focus in empirical study remain confined in the European context. Even when other parts of the globe are visited, the theories and frameworks continue to have what is called a ‘Western bias’ (Köhler et al., Reference Köhler, Geels, Kern, Markard, Onsongo, Wieczorek and Wells2019, Ramos-Mejia et al., Reference Ramos-Mejía, Franco-Garcia and Jauregui-Becker2018; Ghosh and Schot, Reference Ghosh and Schot2019). When studying transitions in contexts outside of Europe, especially in the so-called ‘Global South’, it is argued that ‘many of frameworks’ implicit theoretical assumptions do not hold’ (Feola, Reference Feola2020). A useful starting point is therefore to understand why and how contexts differ between Global South and Global North and in what ways ST theories could be sensitive and meaningful as a theory of change in Global South contexts.
Historically, the term ‘Global South’ has been popular as an alternative to the notions of ‘third world’, ‘poor nations’, ‘least developed countries’ or ‘developing countries’ (UNCTAD, 2022). Each of these terms are problematic as they carry a misplaced value judgement of a countries’ core versus peripheral position in a world dominated by neoliberal developmental ideas (e.g. GDP growth is a major indicator of development), ignoring the vast social diversity, environmental and cultural values and practises (Chant and Mcllwaine, Reference Chant and McIlwaine2009). In regions such as Latin America, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, decades of colonial rule have shaped the local infrastructures, institutions and aspirations in line with the ‘rules’ of capitalism and industrial modernity, such as encouraging growth through mass production, maintaining supplies at the cost of extraction and overconsumption, and disconnecting from nature as a symbol of progress and modernity (Kanger et al., Reference Kanger, Tinits, Pahker, Orru, Tiwari, Sillak and Vaik2022).
History books tell us how countries that are currently seen as developing and poor were attacked and plundered by colonising nations, drawing out treasures and natural resources (which fuelled their growth) at the cost of the colonised nations left as a ‘corpse’ even after independence [See ‘The Anarchy’ for a harrowing history of the British colonising India (Dalrymple, Reference Dalrymple2019)]. Such histories invite reflection on how development has been done, should be done, by whom, at whose cost and what it means to develop in the first place. In the current context of climate crisis, inequality, migration and wars, development often becomes a burden for the previously colonised nations (Kothari, Reference Kothari2005; Arora and Stirling, Reference Arora and Stirling2023). In order to counter such colonial developmental agendas, Global South as a category enables a fairer appraisal of socio-economic marginalisation and ‘resistance against global hegemonic power’, recognising and repairing the historic injustices and colonial oppressions experienced by the majority of countries in the Southern Hemisphere [see Haug et al., (Reference Haug, Braveboy-Wagner and Maihold2021); Menon (Reference Menon2018); Kloß, (Reference Kloß2017) for recent insights on Global South as a category].
At present, there are high levels of persistent inequalities in the Global South owing to institutional and economic privileges of the few, relying on exclusive provision systems that reproduce social exclusion (Ramos-Mejía et al., Reference Ramos-Mejía, Franco-Garcia and Jauregui-Becker2018). Exclusions are structural causes of poverty, which is a major issue in these contexts owing to (capitalist) structures that maintain and regularise the ‘anti-social’ exploitative economic processes (Baulch and Hoddinott, Reference Baulch and Hoddinott2000; Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2024). There are diverse ‘patterns of poverty reproduction’ (Ramos-Mejía et al., Reference Ramos-Mejía, Franco-Garcia and Jauregui-Becker2018). Limited statehood, especially in conflict or post-conflict areas (Risse, Reference Risse, Leibfried, Huber, Lange, Levy, Nullmeier and Stephens2015), and a lack of political freedom and capabilities for development on their own accord (Sen, Reference Sen1999) entrench socio-economic marginalisation. Democratic struggles in ensuring justice for all, in highly unequal contexts, obstruct people’s visions and capabilities to forge new and common directionality of change and lock them into pursuing ‘development’ (Escobar, Reference Escobar1995) in a way that often leads to a dead end. Transitions in the Global South are therefore a pursuit to rethink development trajectories and understand and appreciate local challenges and opportunities in a way that is sensitive to local cultural histories and diverse social realities (Ghosh et al., Reference Ghosh, Ramos-Mejía, Machado, Yuana and Schiller2021; Preuß et al., Reference Preuß, Galvin, Ghosh and Dütschke2021).
Transitions in the Global South are inherently linked to ST in the Global North (Wieczorek, Reference Wieczorek2018). As the impacts of global environmental change are increasingly manifested, the agendas to transition to sustainability currently pursued by the Global North, for example, decarbonisation, serve as impetus for careful attention to the impacts these have on Global South contexts, for example, the creation of sacrifice zones (Sovacool et al., Reference Sovacool2021; Almeida et al., 2021). For example, the decarbonisation agenda may lead to green extractivism, which perpetuates underdevelopment in the South while reinforcing injustice, that is, decarbonisation by dispossession (Andreucci et al. 2021) and delay ST in the Global South. Given these continuing colonial impulses, it is therefore essential for studies of transitions in the Global South to be accompanied by decolonial sensibilities (Avelino et al. Reference Avelino, Wijsman, van Steenbergen, Jhagroe, Wittmayer, Akerboom and Kalfagianni2024; Ghosh et al., Reference Ghosh, Ramos-Mejía, Machado, Yuana and Schiller2021) and imaginaries of just sustainable futures for all (Mguni et al., Reference Mguni, Herslund and Abrams2025).
Reimagining Global South as a relational category (Berger, Reference Berger2021) further implies that it is more than just a ‘geographic imaginary’ (Haug, Reference Haug, Braveboy-Wagner and Maihold2021), but a relational ‘subversive practise’, that is ‘created, imagined, invented, maintained, and recreated by the ever-changing and never fixed status positions of social actors and institutions’ (Kloß, Reference Kloß2017). Such practises and relationality can exist in the geographical Global North, implying ‘Global South’ to be a much more nuanced epistemological category than simply constituting countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Given the socio-economic heterogeneities in these countries, relationality representing the Global North can be found in some Southern geographies, for instance in the megacities (Ghosh and Schot, Reference Ghosh and Schot2019). Therefore, Global South within Global North and Global North within Global South should be understood as a yin and yang relation, and not as two separate geographical frames.
A key research question addressed in this chapter is: how could we analyse and enact ST in the Global South contexts, in a way that transcends the historical challenges of colonial modernity and undesired modes and forms of development while pursuing just futures? By revisiting key transitions, concepts such as innovation, regimes and change, the aim of this chapter is to illustrate complex and multiple dynamics of transitions in the Global South.
23.2 Sustainability Transitions in the Global South: A Brief Account
Since the late 1990s, a scientific community started to emerge around the topic of ST (Vellinga and Wieczorek, Reference Wieczorek and Vellinga2004; Rip and Kemp, Reference Rip and Kemp1998). Broadly speaking, sustainability transition literature suggests that due to their unstructured, complex and global character, current problems such as climate change or loss of biodiversity can effectively be addressed by means of a radical change in interconnected socio-technical systems providing for human needs such as energy, water or shelter (Elzen et al., Reference Elzen, Geels and Green2004; Elzen and Wieczorek, Reference Elzen and Wieczorek2005). Every aspect of life, from technology, institutions and the economy to the socio-cultural sphere, must transform for a system change to be effective (Wieczorek and Berkhout, Reference Wieczorek and Berkhout2009, Grin et al., Reference Grin, Rotmans and Schot2010). Incremental, technical changes based on the end-of-pipe solutions such as cleaner products or eco-efficiency failed to address the new type of unstructured, complex and wicked problems that a socio-technical approach has the potential to address (Elzen & Wieczorek, Reference Elzen and Wieczorek2005; Geels et al., Reference Geels, Sovacool, Schwanen and Sorrell2017; Ghosh et al., Reference Ghosh and Schot2019; Bhatia, Reference Bhatia2023).
Major transition frameworks such as multi-level perspective (MLP) (Geels, Reference Geels2005), strategic niche management (SNM) (Raven, Reference Raven2005), transition management (TM), (Loorbach, Reference Loorbach2007) and technological innovation systems (TIS) (Bergek et al., Reference Bergek, Jacobsson, Carlsson, Lindmark and Rickne2008; Hekkert et al., Reference Hekkert, Suurs, Negro, Kuhlmann and Smits2007; Wieczorek and Hekkert, Reference Wieczorek and Hekkert2012) have originally been used to clarify and motivate socio-technical transitions in mainly Global North contexts. However, many scholars started using these frameworks in the Global South in the 2000s, especially in Africa (e.g. van Eijck and Romijn, Reference Van Eijck and Romijn2009; Byrne, Reference Byrne2011; Swilling & Annecke, Reference Swilling and Annecke2012) and in Asia (e.g. Berkhout et al., Reference Berkhout, Angel and Wieczorek2009, Reference Berkhout, Verbong, Wieczorek, Raven, Lebel and Bai2010, Reference Berkhout, Wieczorek and Raven2011; Hansen and Nygaard, Reference Hansen and Nygaard2013; Amankwah et al., Reference Amankwah, Klerkx, Oosting, Sakyi-Dawson, Van der Zijpp and Millar2012). In the past decade, the geographical and conceptual breadth of ST has remarkably expanded, for example, in Asia (Yang et al., Reference Yang, Schot and Truffer2022; Yuana et al., Reference Yuana, Sengers, Boon, Hajer and Raven2020; Ghosh et al., Reference Ghosh and Schot2019; Raven et al., Reference Raven, Ghosh, Wieczorek, Stirling, Ghosh, Jolly and Sengers2017; Jolly et al., Reference Jolly, Raven and Romijn2012), Africa (Ting and Byrne, Reference Ting and Byrne2020; Mguni et al., Reference Mguni2015; Swilling & Annecke, Reference Swilling and Annecke2012) and Latin America. Various aspects of transitions, beyond the transitional MLP analysis, are now increasingly discussed, for example, conflicts (Yuana et al., Reference Yuana, Sengers, Boon, Hajer and Raven2020), regime resistance (Ting and Byrne, Reference Ting and Byrne2020), informal occupations (Dutt, Reference Dutt2022) and relationality (Nagarajah, Reference Nagarajah2023).
Lately, the literature has also taken a ‘decolonial turn’, underlining the risks of ‘failing to challenge the reproduction of colonially accumulated power and privilege’ and the consequences of further deepening cultures of domination, toxic extraction and controlling imaginations that constitute key tenets of colonial modernity (for a detailed account, see Arora and Stirling, Reference Arora and Stirling2023). Ghosh et al. (Reference Ghosh, Ramos-Mejía, Machado, Yuana and Schiller2021) argue that there are at least three pragmatic ways in which transitions studies can be decolonised: by recognising everyday struggles as sources of enhanced capacity for resilience and change; by recognising local nuanced dynamics of inequality-induced power asymmetries; and through participatory research that is empowering and non-extractive. Decolonial perspectives are observed in studies highlighting ‘disempowerment effects in empowerment initiatives’ (Jayaweera et al., Reference Jayaweera, Rohracher, Becker, Nop and Waibel2023); ‘hybrid co-existence’ of socio-technical regimes that embodies conflicts (Balanzó-Guzmán and Ramos-Mejía, Reference Balanzó-Guzmán and Ramos-Mejía2023); ‘religious repertoires approach’ to ST (Stacey, Reference Stacey2024) and ‘multiplicity of pasts that lead to diverse presents and futures’ (Terry et al., Reference Terry, Castro, Chibwe, Karuri-Sebina, Savu and Pereira2024). Such perspectives are woven into this chapter, as we have tried to build our arguments based on (and therefore cite) as many Global South scholars as possible as a way to recognise their valuable contributions to ST literature.
In Section 23.3, we aim to take the reader through a journey of discovering the unique characteristics, dynamics of transitions and methodological diversities found in the literature of pursuing transition-oriented research and action in all these contexts.
23.3 Key Characteristics of Transitions in the Global South: Five Themes
In a systematic literature review, Wieczorek et al. (Reference Wieczorek2018) discussed major insights for ‘sustainability transitions in developing countries’, namely: niche formation, experiments and upscaling, change agents and factors, transnational linkages, regime uniformity, stability and change, power, path dependence, normative orientation and system framing. Research on each of these areas has advanced, resulting in integrated framings and newer topics emerging from further empirical studies. For instance, research on niches has evolved into unpacking the variety of innovations, including experimentation and learning (Raven et al., Reference Raven, Lindsay, Lane and Reynolds2024; Dutt, Reference Dutt2023; Schiller et al., Reference Schiller, Klerkx, Centeno and Poortvliet2023). Understandings of regimes have evolved through differentiated understanding of the stability of systems, the role of regime actors as change agents, power asymmetries and path dependencies (Ghosh et al., Reference Ghosh and Schot2019; van Welie, Reference Van Welie, Cherunya, Truffer and Murphy2018; Guma, Reference Guma2021). These distinctive characteristics and dynamics of niches and regimes have implications for the theory of socio-technical change (transitions) in the Global South through the plurality of pathways. Normative orientations of transitions are now extensively considered through justice and decolonising debates (Avelino et al., Reference Avelino, Wijsman, van Steenbergen, Jhagroe, Wittmayer, Akerboom and Kalfagianni2024; Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Höffken and Pols2021; Ghosh et al., Reference Ghosh, Ramos-Mejía, Machado, Yuana and Schiller2021). The methods of transitions have also evolved from identifying and analysing socio-technical systems into considerations of plural knowledges, co-design and empowering storylines (Velasco et al., Reference Velasco, Ghosh, Boni, Schiller and Winkler2024; Rusca et al., Reference Rusca, Sverdlik, Acharya, Basel, Boyd, Comelli and Messori2024). Extending from Wieczorek (Reference Wieczorek2018)’s insights and incorporating the new directions of transitions in the Global South research, we suggest organising this review around five key themes, namely niches, regimes, change, justice and knowledge diversity (methods) (see Figure 23.1).
Figure 23.1 Key themes of research in sustainability transitions in the Global South
23.3.1 Niches and Varieties of Innovations
Within transitions studies, niches are conceptualised as spaces that protect emergent innovations. Source and form of protection or shielding niches may vary (Raven et al. Reference Raven2005; Smith and Raven, Reference Smith and Raven2012). There might be subsidies or certifications that incentivise innovation uptake such as for specialised coffee in Colombia (Ghosh et al., Reference Ghosh, Ramos-Mejía, Machado, Yuana and Schiller2021) or renewable energy in Nepal (Bhattarai et al., Reference Bhattarai, Maraseni, Apan and Devkota2023). Protection is also offered by new attractive business models and banks’ innovative funding schemes such as ‘carbon finance’ (Bolton and Foxon, Reference Bolton and Foxon2015). There can be local actor-networks and discourses that provide passive, informal protection to the alternative technologies and institutions, such as in the case for electric rickshaws in Delhi (Dutt, Reference Dutt2023), which highlights the importance of socio-political networks in niches, beyond financial and policy instruments (Raven, this volume: Chapter 5; Butt et al., Reference Butt, Roy and Some2024). The key argument for the ongoing debates on strategic niche management rests on the mechanisms and politics of protecting niche alternatives, as change agents may not be able to compete with mainstream and incumbent actors, technologies and institutions (i.e. the regime).
In the Global South, niches often emerge as sites of resistance, refusal and countervailing in light of the service provision deficiencies in the shadows of hegemonic incumbent ways (Shove and Walker, Reference Shove and Walker2010; Mguni et al., Reference Mguni2015). The usual niche processes still apply – emerging new actor-networks that can support the resistance against the hegemony of regimes and learning in South–South networks challenging assumptions about the efficiency and marketisation of ‘the normal’ exclusionary regimes.
Niches, conceptually, can be considered as spaces of experimentation by creative, innovative actors, tinkering with technological and social arrangements that are, by necessity, frugal and inclusive. Examples of such experiments are affordable refrigerators in India built of clay (Radjou et al., Reference Radjou, Prabhu and Ahuja2012); Zimbabwe’s Bush Pump (De Laet and Mol, Reference De Laet and Mol2000); speciality coffee production in Colombia (Ghosh et al., Reference Ghosh and Schot2019); multi-stakeholder processes of protecting ecological infrastructure and mutual learning for water governance in South Africa (Boni et al., Reference Boni, Belda-Miquel and Velasco2023); and circular economy practises in the informal sector owing to lack of affordability (Korsuna et al., Reference Korsuna, Halme, Kourula, Levanen and Lima-Toivanen2022). Circularity in everyday slum dwelling through waste-based informal micro-enterprises, training and awareness on ‘keeping products alive’, thereby the culture of repairing and maintaining could be considered innovative niche-level efforts towards just transitions (Abunyewah et al., Reference Abunyewah, Erdiaw-Kwasie, Okyere and Boateng2023).
Experiments in niches in the Global South need to prioritise innovation that embodies diverse imaginaries (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Höffken and Pols2021), providing prominence often embodied in to ways knowing and doing innovation that are ‘subaltern’ or rooted in practises that are historically marginalised under imperial and colonial power structures (Arora & Stirling, Reference Arora and Stirling2023; Mavhunga, Reference Mavhunga and Mavhunga2017). Scaling of these innovations is often constrained by ‘livelihood opportunities, assets and strategies’ (Singh et al., Reference Singh, Dell’Angelo, Oguge and Odote2024). Subaltern scholars further suggest the undesirabilities of scaling innovations beyond their ‘ecological boundaries’ (Roysen et al., Reference Roysen, Bruehwiler, Kos, Boyer and Koehrsen2024) to avoid the ‘mounting pile of ruins that scalability leaves behind’ (Tsing, Reference Tsing2012) as scaling innovations may reproduce or trigger further injustices, as in the case of patriarchy and child labour in artisanal Congolese cobalt mining (Sovacool, Reference Sovacool2021).
A decolonial interpretation of the niche literature should invite reflexivity on where, how and by whom do niche innovations emerge, privileging a relational worldview. In the Global South, it is often a community of practice (CoP), acting as innovators by constantly modifying strategies, visions, approaches and materiality, to reconfigure and adapt systems that do not work for everyone, into fluid, heterogenous configurations that are fit for purpose (de Laet & Mol, Reference De Laet and Mol2000; Lawhon et al., Reference Lawhon, Nilsson, Silver, Ernstson and Lwasa2018; Guma, Reference Guma2021). In order to be a ‘niche actor’, agency for change can therefore be embedded in unexpected places of established systems, such as with households, religious actors, public officials and unions of informal workers, who might also work against or parallel to the State (Raven et al., Reference Raven, Lindsay, Lane and Reynolds2024; Koehrsen, Reference Koehrsen and Ives2025; Dutt, Reference Dutt2022; Yuana et al., Reference Yuana, Boon, Raven, Hajer, Sengers and Ghosh2023; Misleh et al., Reference Misleh, Dziumla, De La Garza and Guenther2024; Ghosh and Schot, Reference Ghosh and Schot2019). Such actor-networks are created bottom up, as people with common and complementary interests form communities and unions to reinforce each other’s visions and actions for the alternative technologies or business models. Dutt (Reference Dutt2023) proposes that these networks might constitute both the status quo and the alternative, niche and regime actors, thereby questioning the binary opposition between the niche and regime, conventionally present in transitions literature. An important set of actors who, in fact, bridge this binary are called the intermediary actors, who play a bridging role in facilitating exchange and mobilising resources between CoPs, as they ‘broker between niche-internal and niche-external actors’ aiding in niche acceleration (Schiller et al., Reference Schiller, Klerkx, Centeno and Poortvliet2023; Kanda et al., this volume: Chapter 18; Kivimaa et al., Reference Kivimaa, Bergek, Matschoss and Van Lente2020). As such, such a nuanced understanding of niche configurations, possibilities and identifying actor-networks at the interface between niche and regimes (including intermediaries) in the Global South is incomplete without aids in elaborating a similarly nuanced conceptualisation of the regime as reflected in Section 23.3.2.
23.3.2 Regimes
Socio-technical regimes are defined as ‘dominant and stable configuration of rules’ in transitions theory (Misleh et al., Reference Misleh, Dziumla, De La Garza and Guenther2024; Schot and Geels, Reference Schot and Geels2007). This definition is however critically examined, especially the degree and nature of stability and dominance of the regime configurations are questioned in the Global South. This vibrant debate in the recent decade has resulted in many adjectives being used to describe global south regimes, such as ‘unstable (and highly dynamic)’ (Verbong et al., Reference Verbong, Christiaens, Raven and Balkema2010), ‘fluid’ (Berkhout et al., Reference Berkhout, Verbong, Wieczorek, Raven, Lebel and Bai2010), ‘undemocratic and non-egalitarian’ (Hansen et al., Reference Hansen, Nygaard, Romijn, Wieczorek, Kamp and Klerkx2018), ‘fragmented and splintered’ (van Welie, Reference Van Welie, Cherunya, Truffer and Murphy2018), and ‘unregulated’ (Ramos-Mejia et al., Reference Ramos-Mejía, Franco-Garcia and Jauregui-Becker2018) or encompassing a dynamic combination of institutional logics (Ghosh, Reference Ghosh, Ramos-Mejía, Machado, Yuana and Schiller2021). Regimes are ‘semi-coherent configuration of rules such as laws, standards, beliefs, routines and norms’ (Geels, Reference Geels2005). These rules are driven by current and historical societal roles and relationships, such as the relationship between people and nature, that historically encompassed a complex, non-extractivist and often spiritual web of interrelations (Escobar, Reference Escobar1995; Ives, Reference Ives, Abson, von Wehrden, Dorninger, Klaniecki and Fischer2018; Ahlborg et al., Reference Ahlborg, Ruiz-Mercado, Molander and Masera2019).
Guma (Reference Guma2021) highlighted how the conventional characterisation of regimes disqualifies alternative forms of urban development, that is, shacks, shanties and micro-stalls in Kibera, Nairobi or temporary use of urban spaces (Agheyisi, Reference Almeida, Kolinjivadi, Ferrando, Roy, Herrera, Gonçalves and Van Hecken2023). These analyses stem from the definition of regime as (dynamically) stable and (semi-)coherent, while modified definitions such as regimes as ‘shaped and maintained through the mutual adaptation and co-evolution of its actors and elements’ (Holtz, Reference Holtz, Brugnach and Pahl-Wostl2008) are more congruent with diverse contextual specificities. Still, the concept of regime is a useful heuristic to analyse systemic change, as mobilised in multiple recent studies (see Dutt, Reference Dutt2022; Ghosh and Sharmeen, Reference Ghosh and Sharmeen2021; Khatoon et al., Reference Khatoon, Kivimaa, Brisbois and Saadi2024). These informal and transient structures offer viable alternatives amidst the exclusionary nature of neoliberal and market-oriented interventions featured in the dominant ways of being-in-the-world.
Scholars have observed that in the Global South contexts of poverty and deprivations, people try different strategies and ‘experiment’ with new ways of making ends meet, which in turn strengthens their tolerance and acceptance of volatility and change (Lawhon et al., Reference Lawhon, Nilsson, Silver, Ernstson and Lwasa2018; Mguni et al., Reference Mguni, van Vliet, Spaargaren, Nakirya, Osuret, Isunju, Ssekamatte and Mugambe2020; Ramos-Mejía et al., Reference Ramos-Mejía, Franco-Garcia and Jauregui-Becker2018; Baulch and Hoddinott, Reference Baulch and Hoddinott2000). The idea of stability or a constant state of things is largely absent, as societies deal with dysfunctional or absent basic systems of provision by navigating precarity. Instead, van Welie (Reference Van Welie, Cherunya, Truffer and Murphy2018) conceptualised the notion of ‘service regimes’ that are characterised by infrastructures, organisational capabilities or competencies, spatial and temporal locations, meaning, expectations and social interactions. Using Nairobi’s sanitation regime, they show that most basic service regimes in the Global South are ‘splintered’ as multiple co-existing service regimes, which are internally misaligned, cause further misalignment and dysfunctionality at the sectoral level. Cherunya et al. (Reference Cherunya, Ahlborg and Truffer2020) shows that innovations are usually anchored in this ‘oscillating domestic space’ where ‘people are faced with constant fluctuations – expected and unexpected [and] … are forced to respond to precarious situations by adopting a multiplicity of complementary and partial solutions’.
These internal tensions, precarity and ‘ongoing adjustments’ are constitutive of what Madsen et al. (Reference Madsen, Miörner and Hansen2021) call ‘intra-regime dynamics’. Regimes are not always tied to one specific dominant technological configuration but embed a great diversity of modes. Power differentials and contestations are prominent in co-existing regimes, for instance, in Global South smart cities initiatives (Madsen et al., Reference Madsen, Miörner and Hansen2022; Datta and Odendaal, Reference Datta and Odendaal2019). The high degree of non-uniformity of regimes in the Global South is further manifested in a diverse portfolio of needs, preferences and visions, for instance, in the co-existing regimes of the urban mobility system of Kolkata (Roy et al., Reference Roy, Bailey and van Noorloos2024; Ghosh and Schot, Reference Ghosh and Schot2019), systems considered old and less efficient, such as trams and rickshaws, co-existed with newer systems like metro and low-emission buses. The reliance on diverse systems of mobility in a densely populated city shows the need for protecting plurality, beyond mainstreaming a few dominant innovations, in circumstances where people live with infrastructures in a constant state of disrepair (Wieczorek, Reference Wieczorek2018). Such co-existing diversity can also be explained by communities with heterogenous and strong traditional values, emotions, nostalgia and interests in preserving the old while incorporating the new. This discussion leads us to reflect on the issue of ST as a theory of socio-technical change in Section 23.3.3.
23.3.3 The Theory of Change – Plurality of Pathways
Highly dynamic regimes in the Global South contexts pose unique challenges for ST. The MLP as a generic theory of change has been often criticised for falling short of capturing the nuances of agency, practises and ontologies in the Global South contexts (Shove and Walker, Reference Shove and Walker2010; Geels, Reference Geels2011; Ghosh et al., Reference Ghosh, Ramos-Mejía, Machado, Yuana and Schiller2021). Propositions of radical regime shift, one where a regime is replaced or substituted by another as a whole, ignore the messy realities of change in the Global South contexts, where regimes are realistically renewed, repaired or (re)configured at best, instead of phased out and substituted (Khatoon, Reference Khatoon, Kivimaa, Brisbois and Saadi2024; Ghosh and Schot, Reference Ghosh and Schot2019). The alternative development trajectories of Global South regimes, especially under conditions of enduring poverty and inequalities, and uneven sources and extents of lock-in and stability, are an important area of research (Goldstein, Reference Goldstein, Neimark, Garvey and Phelps2023). As such, the key implication is that different change pathways and strategies may be needed to enact transitions in the Global South.
A key question is then: how is change characterised in the literature on transitions in the Global South? To this end, Khatoon et al. (Reference Khatoon, Kivimaa, Brisbois and Saadi2024) argue that mobility transitions in the Global South are dominated by a variety of public transportation systems, where ‘regime-based transformative change’ would entail policies that not only support low-emission mass transport facilities but also improve and reconfigure the existing technologies and practises. With a ‘novel regime change framework’, Ghosh and Schot (Reference Ghosh and Schot2019) showed various sets of rules along different system dimensions, forming multiple trajectories of change. Actors in established ‘regimes’ such as officials in the public transport systems heavily invest in expanding, modernising and reconfiguring the systems, tackling the uncertainties, associated lock-ins and difficulties in changing the regimes. They further highlighted ‘a plurality of possible pathways’ of change in co-existing regimes in the urban mobility space (Ghosh and Schot, Reference Ghosh and Schot2019). Miörner et al. (Reference Miörner, Binz and Fuenfschilling2021) called this ‘recombinatory transition trajectories’, which provides a nuanced approach to mapping pathways of change, beyond the typology of four transition pathways (Geels and Schot, Reference Geels and Schot2007).
Acknowledging the ‘relational materiality’ (how place-specific social and natural material requirements influence technological change, as in the case of solar PV in Sri Lanka) can be considered a decolonial approach to understanding socio-technical change (Nagarajah, Reference Nagarajah2023). Relationality is also evident in Ghana and Ethiopia’s improved ranking in the industrial modernity index due to increased material extraction, given their historically low material and energy consumption as a starting point (Pahker et al., Reference Pahker, Kanger and Tinits2024). Changes in natural infrastructure, which include ecosystem services, engineered infrastructure and distant and proximate institutions, are important markers of rural-to-urban transition in the Global South (Hutchings et al., Reference Hutchings, Willcock, Lynch, Bundhoo, Brewer, Cooper and Welivita2022). In explaining change in the Global South, the role of State and governmental institutions is highlighted by many scholars (Bhatia, Reference Bhatia2023; Misleh et al., Reference Misleh, Dziumla, De La Garza and Guenther2024), along with the role of conflicts in change processes. Conflicts are shown in semi-formal mobility in Indonesia (Yuana et al., Reference Yuana, Sengers, Boon, Hajer and Raven2020) as to happen in ‘critical moments’ in the socio-political change processes. Conflicts may also be a result of patriarchal systems of dominance. Wiedmann et al. (Reference Wiedmann, Lenzen, Keyßer and Steinberger2020: 5) share that ‘eco-feminist approaches highlight the role of patriarchal social relations and the parallels between the oppression of women and exploitation of nature, while post-development approaches stress the manifold and heterogeneous visions of achieving such socio-ecological transformations’.
Actors configure their institutional settings differently across the world and thus drive change in dissimilar ways. In many regions in the Global South, traditional practises and cultures come directly into conflict with formal institutions. For example, forest dwellers, indigenous people and pastoralists are forcefully evicted through and as a consequence of ‘fortress conservation projects’ in Tanzania, Thailand, Kenya and Cambodia (Mantz, Reference Mantz2024). Contestations and negotiations between the incumbent and niche actors, as well as between actors with ‘different degrees of incumbency’ (Yang et al., Reference Yang, Schot and Truffer2022) as part of the change process, embody power differences and hierarchies (Avelino, Reference Avelino2017). Thus, a relational view of power is said to offer a better perspective on how power relations emerge, persist and change over time (Ghosh and Arora, Reference Ghosh and Sharmeen2021; Datta and Odendaal, Reference Datta and Odendaal2019; Avelino, Reference Avelino2017).
An opposite pattern is also visible in aspirations to catch up with western models of modernity. Pahker (Reference Pahker, Kanger and Tinits2024) observes that countries like Peru are showing an increased positive attitude and value assigned to science and technology’s role in creating positive societal impact and an instrumental view of nature (e.g. economic growth and job creation, even if the environment suffers) in spite of overwhelming evidence of the unsustainability of such growth and development models (Escobar, Reference Escobar1995). While transition is deemed necessary, setting the directionality of transition remains crucial and consequential.
23.3.4 Justice as Normative Directionality for Transitions
Innovations that support societal change with directionality are pivotal for addressing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) (Boni et al., Reference Boni, Velasco and Tau2021; Parks, Reference Parks2022). An emphasis on economic growth often leads to innovation that is unjust for the climate and future generations (Perkins, Reference Perkins2019). Oriented by the SDGs, the dominant discourse of innovation-led growth has now shifted towards a more holistic governance of sustainability and reflexivity in innovation processes (Susur and Karakaya, Reference Susur and Karakaya2021; Schot and Kanger, Reference Schot and Kanger2018; Boni et al., Reference Boni, Velasco and Tau2021). A decolonisation agenda aligns with this new discourse: It allows ‘an exchange between a diverse of political, ethical and epistemological positions (also known as “multi-epistemic literacy” (Jazeel, Reference Jazeel2019: 227)) and “to open up the ‘possibility to think reality differently’”’ (Pieterse, Reference Pieterse2000, p. 180) (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Höffken and Pols2021; Ranta, Reference Ranta2020; Chassagne, Reference Chassagne2019), therefore inform and modify transition pathways towards plural and just futures (Yuana et al., Reference Yuana, Boon, Raven, Hajer, Sengers and Ghosh2023).
Decolonising transitions in and for the Global South is normative by its own merit. Here, addressing the ‘dark sides of sustainability transitions’ (McGowan and Antadze, Reference McGowan and Antadze2023; Sovacool, Reference Sovacool2021) requires more than technological change and a serious engagement with alternative framings and narratives originating from the South (Mguni et al., Reference Mguni, Herslund and Abrams2025). Deeply philosophical concepts and worldviews such as Buen Vivir (translates as ‘Good Life’, originating in Ecuador), Ecological Swaraj (translated as ‘self-reliance’, originating in India) and Ubuntu emphasising relationality (Mabele, Reference Mabele, Krauss and Kiwango2022) have penetrated the literature in English on sustainable development (Jimenez et al., Reference Jimenez, Delgado, Merino and Argumedo2022; Ranta, Reference Ranta2020; Chassagne, Reference Chassagne2019; Vanhulst and Beling, Reference Vanhulst and Beling2014; Kothari et al., Reference Kothari, Demaria and Acosta2014; Walsh, Reference Walsh2010). These concepts embody justice in their framing of the well-being of humans as intertwined with nature, other humans and ‘strong democratic and egalitarian impulse’. Justice as desired directionality of transition helps resist the colonial pressures of development and progress at the cost of ecological destruction and expanding the gap between rich and poor in the Global South economies (Chassagne, Reference Chassagne2019; Mohanty, Reference Mohanty2018; Datta and Odendaal, Reference Datta and Odendaal2019).
It is important to shape directionalities of innovation policies to not only direct innovations or best technological solutions but also perceive innovation as negotiation of diverse demands, perspectives and multi-directional (Raven et al., Reference Raven, Ghosh, Wieczorek, Stirling, Ghosh, Jolly and Sengers2017; Dierecks et al., Reference Diercks, Larsen and Steward2019; Yang et al., Reference Yang, Schot and Truffer2022). Directionality of change, in principle, is less determined by selected actors and more navigated through multi-actor negotiation processes of deliberative democratic arrangements (Boni et al., Reference Boni, Belda-Miquel and Velasco2023). It is about acknowledging many possibilities and choices of innovation and democratising the process of innovation, by recognising diverse communities in the innovation ecosystem (Boni et al., Reference Boni, Belda-Miquel and Velasco2023; Mavhunga, Reference Mavhunga2018). It is also about making space for resistance and refusal by marginalised communities of hegemonic frames about development, innovation and what constitutes desirable futures (Yuana et al., Reference Yuana, Boon, Raven, Hajer, Sengers and Ghosh2023; Tuck & Yang, Reference Tuck, Yang, Paris and Winn2014; Mguni et al., Reference Mguni, Herslund and Abrams2025).
Comparing the development pathways of 34 countries, Pahker et al. (Reference Pahker, Kanger and Tinits2024) shows that most Global South countries like Brazil, India and Thailand have not performed well in recent years in assigning directionality to their growth and innovation trajectories (the exception is between Ghana and Ethiopia), which show more directionality in their use of resources to bypass the adverse consequences of industrial modernity and have better potential for sustainable deep transitions (Schot and Kanger, Reference Schot and Kanger2018; Davies and Schot, Reference Davies and Schotthis volume: Chapter 7). Often, change is in directions dictated by the affluent or the ‘super-affluent’ across the globe (Wiedmann et al., Reference Wiedmann, Lenzen, Keyßer and Steinberger2020), causing further injustices. Illustrations of injustice include how megaprojects such as the Moroccan Solar Plan can be co-opted by the elites in the form of ‘marginalising the Moroccan people, while benefiting the palace’ (Okpanachi et al., Reference Okpanachi, Ambe-Uva and Fassih2022).
‘Just transitions’ is therefore an important agenda providing normative directionality in the transitions literature (Truffer et al., Reference Truffer, Rohracher, Kivimaa, Raven, Alkemade, Carvalho and Feola2022; Swilling, Reference Swilling2020; Avelino et al., Reference Avelino, Wijsman, van Steenbergen, Jhagroe, Wittmayer, Akerboom and Kalfagianni2024). Justice can be multi-faceted, such as distributive, procedural, deliberative, recognitional, preparative and epistemic (Avelino et al., Reference Avelino, Wijsman, van Steenbergen, Jhagroe, Wittmayer, Akerboom and Kalfagianni2024; Späth et al., Reference Späth, Castán Broto, Bawakyillenuo and Pregernig2022; Sultana et al., Reference Sultana2022; William and Doyon, Reference Williams and Doyon2019). Haswell et al. (Reference Haswell, Edelenbosch, Piscicelli and Van Vuuren2023) show how, for circular economy missions, ‘global South policy choices frequently replicate the Global North developmental path’. Such top-down replication, overlooking historically circular and sustainable practises such as waste-picking (Randhawa et al., Reference Randhawa, Marshall, Kushwaha and Desai2020), car-sharing and zero-waste habits, not only creates local procedural and recognitional injustices but also makes transitions less appealing locally. For recognitional justice, it is crucial to value communities’ resilience to ‘everyday local struggles’ in the Global South (Ghosh et al., Reference Ghosh, Ramos-Mejía, Machado, Yuana and Schiller2021). Procedural and restorative justice is about ensuring local systems are managed by local communities, ‘in ways that are culturally relevant and ecologically sustainable’ (Laldjebaev et al., Reference Laldjebaev2017: 98; Okpanachi et al., Reference Okpanachi, Ambe-Uva and Fassih2022). Agroecological niches are good examples of enacting restorative justice (Schiller et al., Reference Schiller, Klerkx, Centeno and Poortvliet2023; Jimenez et al., Reference Jimenez, Delgado, Merino and Argumedo2022).
23.3.5 Embracing Diverse Knowledges
A final key element of ST in the Global South is the discussion on knowledges and methodologies of studying and enacting transitions. How knowledge(s) is produced, which knowledges are prioritised and whose knowledge is recognised and to what end – are important questions of epistemic justice, resolved through embracing transdisciplinary knowledge co-production (Mauser et al., Reference Mauser, Klepper, Rice, Schmalzbauer, Hackmann, Leemans and Moore2013). Scholars have highlighted the importance of ‘learning from the South’ on sustainable practises, resilience, climate mitigation strategies and grassroots innovation initiatives (Mukhopadhyay et al., Reference Mukhopadhyay, Hammami and Watson2021). Schiller et al. (Reference Schiller, Klerkx, Centeno and Poortvliet2023) observe that ‘knowledge from the Nicaraguan niche has been particularly influential concerning the development of the global farmer-to-farmer movement, transnational peasant organising and standard setting at a regional scale’.
The historic amnesia of Indigenous knowledges and assumed superiority of western science are key concerns in many interdisciplinary fields, including ST (Balanzó-Guzmán and Ramos-Mejía, Reference Balanzó-Guzmán and Ramos-Mejía2023). Ghosh et al. (Reference Ghosh, Ramos-Mejía, Machado, Yuana and Schiller2021) observed transition scholars need to confront ‘epistemic colonisation’ by recognising other ways of knowing and doing (Arora and Stirling, Reference Arora and Stirling2023). This includes endogenous appraisal by the local communities on what they need to survive and thrive, using ‘plural approaches’, without outsiders advice and guidance on transition processes and outcomes (Chassagne, Reference Chassagne2019). A number of scholars have now highlighted the important role of Indigenous people and their ‘traditional ecological knowledges’ as key drivers of ST (Doyon et al., Reference Doyon, Boron and Williams2021; Nirmal and Rocheleau, Reference Nirmal and Rocheleau2019; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Reference Ndlovu-Gatsheni2020). An important method of exploring such local contextual ‘wealth of experience and exchanges’ could be through storytelling (Spath et al., Reference Späth, Castán Broto, Bawakyillenuo and Pregernig2022), where people’s experiential knowledge and deep-seated beliefs are made explicit. Through storytelling, ideas from the Global South such as ‘Ubuntu’ that centre the importance of mutual relationality between all species, nature and the spiritual (Mabele et al., Reference Mabele, Krauss and Kiwango2022) can be made to guide change processes, to consider nature as not just a stock of resources, but as an interacting environment, where the relationship between humans and nature is that of unity and reciprocity. Nurturing such epistemic plurality, through connecting with and building on knowledge domains, previously perceived as peripheral to transitions (such as indigenous cultures, political and urban ecology, critical and intersectional feminism, gender, queer theory and development theory), is fundamental to just transitions (Cannon and Chu, Reference Cannon and Chu2021; Swilling et al., Reference Swilling, Musango and Wakeford2016; Truffer et al., Reference Truffer, Rohracher, Kivimaa, Raven, Alkemade, Carvalho and Feola2022).
Developing infrastructures for transdisciplinary knowledge co-production is key to transcending epistemological superiority (Doyon et al., Reference Doyon, Boron and Williams2021). Schiller et al. (Reference Schiller, Klerkx, Centeno and Poortvliet2023) highlight multiple ‘knowledge processes’, such as knowledge production, circulation, aggregation and translation, that constitute knowledge flows, which transdisciplinary knowledge infrastructures can support (Velasco et al., Reference Velasco, Ghosh, Boni, Schiller and Winkler2024). Methods such as co-designing plural climate storylines (Rusca et al., Reference Rusca, Sverdlik, Acharya, Basel, Boyd, Comelli and Messori2024) are less extractive (Ghosh et al., Reference Ghosh, Kivimaa, Ramirez, Schot and Torrens2021) as they respect and preserve ‘historical, socioeconomic and psychological context;.[and] reciprocity in considering the benefits for participating Indigenou/marginalised communities’ (Markiewicz, Reference Markiewicz2012; Mguni et al., Reference Mguni, Herslund and Abrams2025). Co-production techniques also help avoid the ‘streetlight effect’ (metaphorically flaring light on selective data and information as evidence, therefore ignoring other evidences such as narratives and experiences) (Hendrix, Reference Hendrix2017) and preserve heterogeneity of knowledges (Okpanachi et al., Reference Okpanachi, Ambe-Uva and Fassih2022). Refocusing the transitions knowledge field from heuristic understanding of socio-technical change, towards recognition and mobilisation of diverse forms of knowledges about just forms of change, that is, feminist, decolonial, inclusive and anti-capitalistic directions should be prioritised by Global South transition scholars.
23.4 Conclusion and Ways Forward
Ahmed (Reference Ahmed2023)’s provocative title ‘The Future of Human Civilization is African’ highlights the urgency and importance of engaging with transition dynamics in the Global South. In the beginning of this chapter, we explained what we mean by the Global South and its interconnectedness with the Global North, inviting the reader to think deeply about these concepts beyond mere geographical categories. In this section, we underline several reasons why looking closely at the ST dynamics in the Global South bears some merit, given the histories of coloniality, challenges as well as opportunities of confronting the climate and social crisis, and legacies of colonial modernity. On one hand, the Global South is disproportionately disadvantaged by the impacts of climate change (Batista-Pritchard, Reference Batista-Pritchard2024), yet on the other hand, innovative solutions for sustainable living, heterogenous ideas of sufficiency and coexistence of natures and cultures constitute important epistemologies in the Global South, which are worth unpacking.
The research question posed in the beginning of the chapter is how could we analyse and enact ST in the Global South contexts, in a way that transcends the historical challenges of colonial modernity and current undesirable modes and forms of development while pursuing just futures? We answer this question along five themes or topics that we argue encompass the key debates in Transitions in Global South literature. These are understandings of niches, regimes, change, justice and knowledge diversity. We found that considerations of varieties of innovation, experimentation, dynamic stability of regimes and relational materiality in change processes are promising avenues to transcend ill impacts of colonial modernity such as concentration of privileges, degraded nature, a changing climate, cultural hierarchies and comprehensive superiorities. In our view, justice as directionality and plurality of knowledges are prominent ways to avoid unjust and singular (thereby undesired) modes and forms of development.
Research on transition in the Global South could go deeper along these five themes, combine and extend beyond them, to materialise decolonial pathways for transitions that pressures of colonial modernity have suppressed for decades. For instance:
(1) In order for niches to develop and accelerate for just futures in the Global South, one could ask what kind of socio-political, economic and cultural conditions are required? How could we recognise and integrate diverse emotions, future visions and storylines in experimentation? What are the current logics of niche formation and survival in GS contexts?
(2) For regimes, key questions could be: what are the logics configuring current socio-technical regimes in the Global South, what are the institutional barriers for addressing inequality and historic injustices, and what new methods can be developed to overcome these barriers through policy, investments and prefigurative politics?
(3) For mapping, managing and monitoring change through plural pathways in the Global South, transition scholars could look beyond substitution and replacement of whole systems and more into adaptation, resilience and coping strategies in response to crises, such as heat extremes, flooding and so on, already experienced in these contexts. What can be learnt from these experiences for better anticipatory policies?
(4) Understandings of justice as directionality could be deepened through analysing heterogenous choices, expectations and conditionalities that accompany socio-ecological and socio-technical change in the Global South.
(5) Finally, to acknowledge the diversity of knowledges that abound, future transition research methods could combine data science and social science, qualitative and quantitative, ‘western-scientific’ and indigenous methods of producing and implementing actionable knowledges.
Researching socio-technical change, innovation and justice, in and with Global South communities with such explicit intention of co-producing a ‘more pluralistic body of knowledge’ (Zolfagharian et al., Reference Zolfagharian, Walrave, Raven and Romme2019) could enrich ST literature as a whole.
Open access