A widespread assumption is emerging that digitalization is key to achieving sustainability transition (Creutzig et al 2022; Dæhlen, 2023). Twin Transition, as it is also increasingly called in high-level policy documents (e.g. the European Growth Model), captures this assumption and suggests that the green and digital transitions can mutually reinforce each other. Public sector organizations are believed to play a significant role in these transitions as leaders, catalysts and change agents. However, for the Twin Transition to happen, government organizations themselves need to develop high-level anticipatory, strategic, collaborative, administrative and other capabilities while integrating the green and digital transitions.

Despite this wide awakening, we know relatively little both theoretically and empirically how public administration (PA) is related to sustainability transition in general (Biesbroek et al 2018) and twin transition specifically (Meijer 2024). We also do not know very well how the digital and green transitions are related, and if and how they actually reinforce each other. Cities are in key position to solve place-based sustainability transition challenges by creating and nurturing new markets, initiating and facilitating transition networks, enabling new social practices, and leading by example as they reform public service provision (e.g. Bianchi 2024). The European Climate Neutral Cities (CNC) mission is a prominent reflection of this realization (Shabb and McCormick 2023). Practices of urban administration have far-reaching consequences in shaping the innovative processes in the societies they are situated in. Therefore, understanding the emerging strategies, experiments, and the underlying PA capabilities of twin transition is crucial.

In this study we focus on city governments and ask three inter-related questions:

- What kind of strategic approaches and pathways have cities adopted for twin transition?

- What kind of innovation activities have cities initiated for twin transition?

- What kind of (dynamic) capabilities cities evoke to implement the twin transition?

Based on the literature of socio-technical transformations, transition governance and public sector dynamic capabilities (e.g., Janssen et al 2023, Borras et al 2023, Borras and Edler 2020, Braams et al 2022, Loorbach 2010; Kattel and Mazzucato 2018) we conceptualize three generic levels of tasks that the public sector organizations have to tackle: transition governance, such as setting overall aims, articulating values, and framing problems; transition pathways, which entails choice and design of policy and strategy as well as collaborative practices; and organizational dynamic capabilities that are manifested in routines and practices through which the aforementioned aims and policies are implemented. Hence, we are focusing on emerging practices on strategic, tactical and operational levels as governments act their role as change agents by pursuing different tasks and mobilizing different capabilities in these spheres vis-a-vis other agents.

The study presents data gathered on emerging paradigms and practice of twin transition in 9 European cities that represent different socio-ecological realities (such as varying levels of adherence to green and digital transitions), geographical contexts, and administrative traditions (Anglo-American, Napoloenic, Germanic, Nordic, and Central-Eastern European, see Peters 2021). The cities included in the analysis are Utrecht, Rotterdam, Barcelona, London (Camden), Leuven, Tallinn, Tartu, Helsinki, and Lund. Most of them are members of the CNC network and thus presumably leaders in the green transition. Analysis is based on intensive interviewing (N=90) based on semi-structured protocol, and document analysis. The interviews will be conducted in February-April 2024.

Results allow us to develop a better understanding and conceptualization of the emerging twin transition paradigms, the roles city governments play in twin transitions, the emerging twin transition experiments, and the capabilities city governments need in order to nurture to mobilize resources and skills for the transition. The study will also provide practical value for governing both the green and digital transformation of societies.

There is wide-spread expectation that twinning digital and sustainability transitions creates synergies between the two. Yet there is little knowledge of the emergent twin transition conceptualizations and practices. This gap is especially relevant in the realm of public administration that is supposed to undergo a twin transition on its own as well as act as a role model, leader and regulator in society-wide transitions. This article aims to discover how the two transitions are conceptually “twinned” and brought along in urban public administration. For this, two research questions are posed:

1. How is “twin transition” conceptualized among urban administrators?

2. What theory of change for achieving “twin transition” can be detected?

Empirical evidence for this inquiry come from two Scandinavian cities which are on the forefront of sustainability and digital transitions globally: Helsinki and Lund. These are the cities in which the twin transition tendencies are the most visible. The analysis is based on interviews (N=19) and grey literature analysis (policies, strategies, presentations).

Results show that rather than being a monolithic and well-defined phenomenon, twin transition is understood and practiced in different ways. At least three different conceptualizations of twin transition were detected. They can be listed by growing complexity as following:

1. Twin transition as technological boost for sustainability transition

2. Twin transition as an accountability mechanism for sustainability transition

3. Twin transition as a new administrative paradigm

Although civil servants did not present an explicit theory of change for the emergence of twin transition, several criteria and pathways could be detected. Political support and legitimacy among citizens and civil servants of sustainability goals was seen as sine qua non of the twin transition. Analytically, twin transition can be seen as emerging in-between the organizational reforms that support innovation and mid-level practices that mobilize street level bureaucrats. Yet, the inability of understand how much digitalization helps to reduce carbon emissions or material flows is an important shortcoming in harnessing the potential of twin transition.

Green and digital agendas are two strands of future imaginaries, conceptualised as twin transitions on the European Commission level (see Muench 2022). It is hoped that e-governance can aid in sustainability policies, but there is also a dark side to that linking, and the outcome depends on the difficult change of institutions (Meijer 2024). Public administrations have a morphing role to fulfil the mutually reinforcing possibilities of those transitions. Issues touching both transitions, e.g. mobility, are implemented at the municipality level. Cities have a constrained, yet important role to play in steering the transitions.

The research problem at hand is that new capabilities are needed for public administration organisations to benefit from digital technologies for green agendas. For example, policy coherence of otherwise separate digital and green agendas in the form of digital data collection to make better green policies (Dæhlen 2023) The research question follows how that is done and framed in practice, what are the possibilities and limitations for the next steps forward from the current formulation of public administration. Taking the form of an empirical case study of public administration capabilities in two Estonian cities Tallinn and Tartu. The main source of data is from semi-structured interviews, but also from documentation analysis. Interviews are on the political, strategic, and implementation levels and in different fields such as mobility, circular economy, energy, urban planning, waste management, and environmental protection issues.

Thicker description brings the contextually affecting factors to capability building, i.e. which surrounding social phenomena affect the process and how, providing a more holistic view and allowing social mechanics to be viewed in their own web of complexity. Furthermore, we can observe how the emerging twin transition is framed in strategy and also in practice within the cities. There is value in this angle, as different sectors, levels and areas of municipal public administration are observed in reaction to the same topic – it brings an overview of an otherwise quite specialised and siloed administration.

This paper is not to document all projects that are designed (or happen) to connect the two transitions, but to see how city administration organisations change to adapt to these opportunities and pressures. Interviews on these topics reveal tensions, difficulties, logics, and rationales and those knots are further investigated. The purpose is to describe why certain choices were made, and what are the limitations, possibilities and imaginaries that shape public administration functioning within those transitions.

The analysis does not aim to provide the final word on these complex social issues but rather offers a qualitatively feasible narrative focusing on interesting connections in empirical observations. Whenever there are signs of classic theories, those are consulted within the analysis, providing a natural synthesis of different theories. The aim is not to go in with a dominant theory but rather the first theories provide a door through which we let empirics reveal which kind of other theories are applicable in this case and to aid analysis. For entrance, there are bits and pieces from mainly organisational theories, routines and capabilities (Nelson & Winter 1982; Karo & Kattel 2018), management (Mintzberg 1989), organisational hypocrisy (Brunnson 2019), principal-agency problems and public administration reforming (Hood 2000) – these form the backbone of theoretical colouring.

For this case, it is clear that some post-soviet ideological path dependencies, small state peculiarities, Estonia-specific factors or even northern hemisphere climate adaptations play a role, amongst many others. All of these things affect framing, policies, capability building and public administration of these issues. Furthermore, legitimacy and relatedly, the expected role of the state and public administration puts a damper on possible capability building.

References:

Muench, S., Stoermer, E., Jensen, K., Asikainen, T., Salvi, M. and Scapolo, F., (2022) ‘Towards a green and digital future’, EUR 31075 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92-76-52451-9, doi:10.2760/977331, JRC129319.

Meijer, A. (2024). Perspectives on the twin transition: Instrumental and institutional linkages between the digital and sustainability transitions. Information Polity, (Preprint), 1-17.

Dæhlen, M. (2023). The Twin Transition Century: The role of digital research for a

successful green transition of society? (The Guild Insight Paper No. 5) The Guild of European

Research-Intensive Universities and Bern Open Publishing. DOI: 10.48350/184458

Mintzberg, H. (1989) Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organizations. Free Press, New York.

Brunnson, N. (2019). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions, and Action in Organizations. (N. Adler, Trans.) (3rd ed.) CBS Press. (Original work published 1989)

Karo, E. & Kattel, R. (2018). Innovation and the State: Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Policy Capacity. 10.1007/978-3-319-54675-9_6.

Hood, C. (2000). The art of the state : culture, rhetoric, and public management. Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press.

Policy scholars often wonder if an entrepreneurial approach to policymaking is needed given the ever-changing and uncertain nature of the challenges publics are facing more frequently (Cairney 2018; Duit and Galaz 2008, Eppel and Rhodes 2018). Over the last decades, policy settings have become increasingly complex due to the rapid pace of technological development, key globalisation trends and unfolding environmental issues. Unexpected pandemic and epidemics, sudden shifts in the international security landscape and abrupt socio-economic changes cascading across the globe present major challenges for the steering capacity of governments and the public sector. So, it is time to question how policymakers grapple with complexity of policy settings and if they act entrepreneurially when approaching a complex policy problem at hand. The issues of policy complexity have not been addressed as factors, which may contribute to the emergence of policy entrepreneurs, as argued by Petridou and Mintrom most recently (2021, 959) suggesting: ‘an explicit theoretical connection among policy entrepreneurs, complexity, and complex adaptive systems would at a minimum increase our understanding of when and how policy entrepreneurs deploy their strategies, especially in relation to the policy problem at hand.’ In an attempt to build such theoretical connection, this study combines four elements of complex systems by Cairney and Geyer (2017) with the four elements central to policy entrepreneurship presented by Mintrom and Norman (2009) in their paper on policy entrepreneurship and policy change. A novel conceptual framework combining these two theoretical streams informs the logic of the data analysis as a part of the methodological approach of this study. The research methodology builds on the qualitative thematic analysis of 78 in-depth interviews with mid-career civil servants from 15 central UK Government Departments, prompted to consider their policy problem at hand as a complex adaptive system.

In this paper, it is hypothesised that looking at the policy problem through the lens of complexity can prompt policymakers to act entrepreneurially in relation to the policy problem at hand, when this problem is approached as a complex adaptive system. This exploratory study aims to establish a conceptual link between complexity and policy entrepreneurship by responding to the following questions. How policymakers perceive the key properties of a complex adaptive system and apply these in relation to their policy problem at hand and which properties appear more relevant to them? Does adopting the complex adaptive systems lens change the policymakers’ approach to the policy problem at hand and if so, how? Do policymakers display any entrepreneurial characteristics when approaching their policy problem as a complex system? To establish a conceptual link between complexity and policy entrepreneurship, this research aims to explore an explicit connection between adopting the complex adaptive systems approach to the policy problem and displaying some of the key entrepreneurial characteristics in relation to this problem.

Focusing on the policymakers’ perspective, this study explores how they turn the key insights from the complexity theory into their policymaking practice and if policymakers deploy any entrepreneurial strategies when considering the policy problem at hand as a complex adaptive system. The objective of this research is to explore how policymakers understand the key insights from the complexity theory and choose to apply some of these to their policymaking approach. With this in mind, we contacted the UK Civil Service Policy Profession to help recruit participants for this study. We were looking to recruit participants employed in a policy role within the UKCS and nominated by their departments to receive training and coaching in complexity theory and systems thinking. Guided by the Policy Profession Standards (Policy Profession 2021), a competency framework for professional development within the UK Civil Service, a standing training programme is offered to the civil servants working in policy roles. One of the standards within this framework ‘Policy Delivery and Systems’ requires policy professionals to be able to understand and apply complexity theory and systems thinking to policy design and delivery. To participate in this training programme, mid-career civil servants are nominated by their departments to enhance their professional competencies. Participants were invited to take part in this research by providing an interview.

This research provides empirical evidence that looking at the policy problem through the complex adaptive systems lens enhances the individual adaptive capacity of some policymakers, which in turn results in acting entrepreneurially in relation to this policy problem. With this argument, this study offers a conceptual starting point connecting the policy entrepreneurship concept with the complex adaptive systems approach in the field of public administration.

The findings from the research presented in this paper provide evidence that understanding complexity of the policy problem through adopting the complex adaptive systems lens enhances adaptive capacity of some policymakers, which in turn results in acting entrepreneurially in relation to this policy problem. This individual adaptive capacity enhances entrepreneurial characteristics of policymakers within the complex policy setting context through its four elements – gaining confidence, adopting new language, forging connections and shifting perspectives. These four elements of adaptive capacity can be enhanced through applying the CAS approach to the policy problem. They also lead to displaying the key entrepreneurial characteristics in relation to the same policy problem. With this argument, this study contributes to the policy entrepreneurship literature (Mintrom and Norman 2009; Petridou and Mintrom 2021; Roberts and King 1996) and research into the application of complexity theory to public administration (Butler and Allen 2005; Cairney and Geyer 2017; Eppel 2017; Eppel and Rhodes 2018; Haynes 2018) by suggesting a conceptual starting point to establish a theoretical connection between these two streams of literature in the field of public administration.

It can be concluded that the individual adaptive capacity, including its four individual elements, constitutes a conceptual link between the complexity of policy settings and policy entrepreneurship. This exploratory study provides empirical evidence for its core conceptual argument suggesting that understanding complexity of the policy problem through adopting the complex adaptive systems lens can enhance the adaptive capacity of some policymakers, which in turn results in acting entrepreneurially in relation to this policy problem.

References

Ackrill, Robert, and Adrian Kay. 2011. "Multiple streams in EU policy-making: the case of the 2005 sugar reform." Journal of European public policy 18 (1): 72-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.520879.

Anzola, David, Peter Barbrook-Johnson, and Juan I. Cano. 2017. "Self-organization and social science." Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 23: 221-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10588-016-9224-2.

Barbrook-Johnson, Pete, Amy Proctor, Sara Giorgi, and Jeremy Phillipson. 2020. "How do policy evaluators understand complexity?" Evaluation 26 (3): 315-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389020930053.

Baumgartner, Frank R., Bryan D. Jones, and Peter B. Mortensen. 2018. "Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking." Theories of the policy process 53 (3): 55-101. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494284-3.

Bevir, Mark, and Rod Rhodes. 2003. Interpreting British governance. London: Routledge.

Bovaird, Tony. 2007. "Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services." Public administration review 67 (5): 846-860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x.

Brooks, Nick, and W. Neil Adger. 2005. "Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity." Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: Developing strategies, policies and measures. Technical paper 7: 165-181.

Burnes, Bernard. 2005. "Complexity theories and organizational change." International journal of management reviews 7 (2): 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.2005.7.issue-2.

Butler, Michael JR, and Peter M. Allen. 2008. "Understanding policy implementation processes as self-organizing systems." Public management review 10 (3): 421-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802002923.

Byrne, David, and Gillian Callaghan. 2022. Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. London: Routledge.

Byrne, David, and Emma Uprichard. 2012. "Useful complex causality." In: H. Kinkard (ed) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of social science Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29-109.

Cairney, Paul. 2012. "Complexity theory in political science and public policy." Political studies review 10 (3): 346-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00270.x.

Cairney, Paul. 2018. “Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs.” Policy & Politics 46(2): 199-215. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447359852.ch002.

Cairney, Paul, and Robert Geyer. 2017. "A critical discussion of complexity theory: how does' complexity thinking improve our understanding of politics and policymaking?." Complexity, Governance and Networks 3 (2): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.20377/cgn-56.

Carter, Neil, and Michael Jacobs. 2014. "Explaining radical policy change: the case of climate change and energy policy under the British labour government 2006–10." Public Administration 92 (1): 125-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12046.

Creswell, John W., and Cheryl N. Poth. 2016. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage Publications.

Crowley, Jocelyn Elise. 2003. The politics of child support in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dervin, Brenda. 1998. "Sense‐making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use." Journal of knowledge management 2 (2): 36-46. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673279810249369.

Duit, Andreas, and Victor Galaz. 2008. "Governance and complexity—emerging issues for governance theory." Governance 21 (3): 311-335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00402.x.

Eppel, Elizabeth A.. 2017. "Complexity thinking in public administration’s theories-in-use." Public Management Review 19 (6): 845-861. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1235721.

Eppel, Elizabeth A., and Mary Lee Rhodes. (2018) “Complexity theory and public management: a ‘becoming’ field.” Public Management Review, 20 (7): 949-959. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1364414.

Geyer, Robert, and Samir Rihani. 2012. Complexity and public policy: A new approach to 21st century politics, policy and society. London: Routledge.

Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1994. "Competing paradigms in qualitative research." In Norman K. Denzin, and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research: 105–117. London: Sage.

Gupta, Joyeeta, Catrien Termeer, Judith Klostermann, Sander Meijerink, Margo Van den Brink, Pieter Jong, Sibout Nooteboom, and Emmy Bergsma. 2010. "The adaptive capacity wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society." Environmental Science & Policy 13 (6): 459-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.05.006.

Haynes, Philip. 2018. “Understanding the influence of values in complex systems-based approaches to public policy and management.” Public Management Review 20 (7): 980-996. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1364411.

Herzog, Christian, Christian Handke, and Erik Hitters. 2019. Analysing talk and text II: Thematic analysis. In Puppis Manuel, Hilde Van den Bulck, Karen Donders and Leo Van Audenhove (Eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research: 385-401. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Juhola, Sirkku, and Sylvia Kruse. 2015. "A framework for analysing regional adaptive capacity assessments: challenges for methodology and policy making." Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 20: 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9481-z.

Kingdon, John W., and Eric Stano. 1984. “Agendas, alternatives, and public policies.” Journal of Public Policy 5(2): 281-283. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00003068.

McGill, Elizabeth, Vanessa Er, Tarra Penney, Matt Egan, Martin White, Petra Meier, Margaret Whitehead, N. et al. 2021. “Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: a research methods review.” Social Science and Medicine 272: 113-697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113697.

Miles, M. B., A. B. Huberman, and J. Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.

Mintrom, Michael. 2000. Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

Mintrom, Michael, and Phillipa Norman. 2009. "Policy entrepreneurship and policy change." Policy studies journal 37 (4): 649-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00329.x.

Mowles, Chris, Ralph Stacey, and Douglas Griffin. 2008. "What contribution can insights from the complexity sciences make to the theory and practice of development management?." Journal of International Development: The Journal of the Development Studies Association 20 (6): 804-820. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1497.

Nooteboom, Sibout. 2007. "Impact assessment procedures for sustainable development: A complexity theory perspective." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (7): 645-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.006.

Norberg, Jon, and Graeme Cumming. 2008. Complexity theory for a sustainable future. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ofek, Yuval. 2016. "Matching evaluation approaches to levels of complexity." Evaluation Review 40 (1): 61-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X16656102. Richardson, Jeremy. 2002. European Union: power and policy-making. London: Routledge.

Petridou, Evangelia, and Michael Mintrom. 2021. "A research agenda for the study of policy entrepreneurs." Policy Studies Journal 49 (4): 943-967. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12405.

Pierson, Paul.2000. "Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics." American political science review 94 (2): 251-267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011.

Pollitt, Christopher. 2009. "Complexity theory and evolutionary public administration: a sceptical afterword." In Geert Teisman, Arwin van Buuren, Lasse M. Gerrits (Eds.) Managing complex governance systems: 227-244. London: Routledge.

Price, Jim, Philip Haynes, Mary Darking, Julia Stroud, Chris Warren-Adamson, and Carla Ricaurte. 2015. "The policymaker’s complexity toolkit." In Robert Geyer and Paul Cairney (Eds.) Handbook on complexity and public policy: 92-110. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Raadschelders, Jos CN. 2011. Public administration: The interdisciplinary study of government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rhodes, Mary Lee, Joanne Murphy, Jenny Muir, and John A. Murray. 2010. Public management and complexity theory: Richer decision-making in public services. London: Routledge.

Rittel, Horst WJ, and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. "Dilemmas in a general theory of planning." Policy sciences 4 (2): 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.

Roberts, Nancy C., and Paula J. King. 1991. "Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1 (2): 147-175. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037081

Roberts, Nancy Charlotte, and Paula J. King. 1996. Transforming public policy: Dynamics of policy entrepreneurship and innovation. New York: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Room, Graham. 2011. Complexity, institutions and public policy: Agile decision-making in a turbulent world. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ruth, Matthias, and Dana Coelho. 2015. "Understanding and managing the complexity of urban systems under climate change." In Livia Bizikova, John Robinson, Stewart Cohen (Eds.) Integrating Climate Change Actions into Local Development: 317-336. London: Routledge.

Svensson, Petra. 2019. "Formalized policy entrepreneurship as a governance tool for policy integration." International Journal of Public Administration 42 (14): 1212-1221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1590401.

Teisman, Geert, Arwin van Buuren, and Lasse M. Gerrits, eds. 2009. Managing complex governance systems. London: Routledge.

Vaismoradi, Mojtaba, Jacqueline Jones, Hannele Turunen, and Sherrill Snelgrove. 2016. "Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis." Journal of Nursing Education and Practice 6 (5) 100-110. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100.

Walter, Castelnovo, and Maddalena Sorrentino. 2018. “Engaging with complexity in a public programme implementation.” Public Management Review, 20 (7): 1013-1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1364406.

Weissert, Carol S. 1991. "Policy entrepreneurs, policy opportunists, and legislative effectiveness." American Politics Quarterly 19 (2): 262-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9101900207.