Blazing the Trail for Sustainability Transitions: Giddens Role in Socio-Technical Regimes

Helge Lea Tvedt, PhD in Economic Geography

Essay for course: Philosophy and Ethics of Social Sciences (VITSV900)

ABSTRACT

In recent years, the business community’s roles in battling environmental challenges are given

considerable attention within social sciences. A range of concepts, including eco-innovation,

green entrepreneurship, and environmental business management are subject to research. This

literature shares an optimistic faith in radical technological innovations and their potential

impact on the environment. At the same time evolutionary innovation models acknowledge that

advantageous technologies does not diffuse linear and spontaneously in the economy (Rogers,

2002). The tension between the optimistic technology push mentality and evolutionary innovation

models creates challenges in terms of understanding and analyzing dissemination of green

technologies. In an endeavor to mitigate the tension between the two approaches, an

understanding that embraces the co-evolution of technologies and institutions are adopted (see

Kemp et al., 2004: Geels et al., 2008). In this regard, Giddens structuration theory (1984) is used

to inform co-evolutionary transition theory by demonstrating how institutions may emerge,

consolidate and change over time. Finally, the co-evolutionary approach is combined with

empirical evidence from the ongoing transformation of the Norwegian car population. The

empirical point of departure is an exemplary way to elucidate the importance and sometimes

necessity of institutional change in diffusion of environmentally sound technologies.

2

2

1 Introduction

At the end of 2016, more than 100 000 electric vehicles (EVs) are registered in Norway

(Motorvognregisteret, 2017). In January 2011, six years earlier, merely 3000 EVs was registered

(see figure 1). In this six-year period, the number of EVs on Norwegian roads has increased with

nearly 3000 per cent. Political measurements, such as exemption of value-added taxes and free

pass through toll plazas for EVs, are claimed to be the prominent cause in this ongoing

transformation. At the same time, policy-makers incessantly discuss potential repeals in the

regulatory regime regarding EVs. Principally, this concerns removal of certain regulations that

currently benefit adoption of electric vehicles. Advocates of the current regulatory regime fears

that repeals will ruin the Norwegian EV-market and consequently halt the ongoing

transformation towards a sustainable car population. Others are more optimistic and believe that

the EV-market will continue to grow despite repeals in the regulatory regime. The question

remains rather obvious; how will the ongoing transformation develop if policy-makers repeal

incentives that favor adoption of EVs. This paper addresses this question by merging Giddens

structuration theory and theory concerning diffusion of innovations and technological transitions.

In the next section (section 2), the theoretical framework is presented. Section 3 provides a

detailed account of the ongoing changes in the Norwegian car population by use of secondary

data sources. In section 4, the theoretical and empirical contributions are discussed thoroughly,

before some conclusions are drawn in section 5.

3

3

2 Merging co-evolutionary transition theory with structuration theory

The ultimate goal of co-evolutionary transition theories is to explain how technological

transitions occur (Markard and Truffer, 2008). Technological transitions are defined as radical,

long-term technological changes in the way societal functions are fulfilled (Geels, 2004) and

have in recent years particularly been associated with shifts towards more sustainable modes of

production and consumption (Markard et al., 2012). Transition theories are based on the

assumption that large-scale transformations are a multilevel process involving co-evolution of

social, political, technological forces and beyond (Kemp et al., 2007). Accordingly,

Schumpetarian technology push ideas are too simplistic and not sufficient to understand such

processes. The concept of technology push should therefore be analyzed in conjunction with

transition theories that includes the essential role of society as a receptor system for new radical

innovations. Transitions theories emphasize emergence of new sociotechnical configurations,

involving substitution of technology, as well as changes in other elements such as regulations,

infrastructure, and user practices (Geels, 2004). The co-evolution of these elements makes up a

sociotechnical system. The transportation sector can for instance be conceptualized as a socio-

technical system with technological trajectories, complementary infrastructure, regulatory

framework, cultural and symbolic meaning and user-preferences.

From an analytical perspective, transition theories identify three levels: niches (micro), regimes

(meso) and landscapes (macro) (Rip & Kemp, 1998). At the micro-level niche, innovations are

generated relatively isolated from normal market selection pressure and mechanisms. Niches thus

create a sanctuary for technology development and provide decent locations for learning

processes and creation of knowledge networks. While the niche level deals with generation and

development of technological innovations, the meso-level sociotechnical regime is the overall

composition of rules and forces governing the reception and functioning of technologies. This

includes a broad range of heterogeneous elements such as regulations and policies,

complementary infrastructure, user practices, distribution network, industry structure and

symbolic meaning (Geels, 2004: Kemp et al., 2007). Finally, the macro-level landscape embraces

the deep structural trends in societies such as broad political agendas, economic growth,

environmental problems and spatial arrangements of cities (Geels, 2004). The focal point of the

multi-level perspective is that the further success of a new technology is not only governed by

processes within the niche, but also by developments at the level of the existing regime and the

4

4

sociotechnical landscape (Geels, 2004). Co-evolutionary transition theories capture some

essential aspects about the dynamics in technological change, particularly in relation to

sustainable transition processes. However, the theories lack some explanatory power in terms of

how informal institutions such as user preferences, value and beliefs, and cultural/symbolic

meaning related to new technologies emerge, change and shape human actions. In an attempt to

better analyze this dimension, Giddens structuration theory is a useful point of departure.

Giddens structuration theory (1984) seeks to explain how societies are created and reproduced by

structures and agents. Giddens claim that social structures exist and influence human behavior.

However, structures exist only as a result of human agency, creating a recursive relationship

between agents and structures (Giddens, 1984). In other words, structures does not exist in

isolation, but are continuously reproduced and maintained as human agents enact in accordance

with prevailing structures in a social system. Giddens term this relationship as the “duality of

structure”. Considering this duality, structures cannot change unless people start to act

inconsistently with existing structures. In this regard, the term reflexivity is used to describe

individual’s capacities to deviate from inherited structures and by that create their own identity

(Giddens, 1984: Whittington, 1992). While individuals can actively shape their own identity in

the social system, the structures of the social system itself are less prone to change. In the latter

case it will require a certain amount of members in a social system to act differently over time,

regardless of whether the changes occur in a society, an organization or a social group (e.g.

family, class etc.) (Yates, 1997). In larger social systems (i.e. the Norwegian society) there are

always members that act inconsistent with the system of social norms (i.e. bohemianism), but as

long as the majority continues to act in accordance, the structures of a social system will remain.

The link between structuration theory and transition theory can be found within the socio-

technical regimes. These regimes are governed by a complex composition of institutions

commonly understood as rules, routines, norms, values, beliefs, regulations, conventions and

standards that shape (economic) actions and behavior (see Hodgeson, 1993). These formal and

informal institutions can be seen as structures that influences agency. Although transition theory

acknowledge that such structures exist, it lacks the tools to analyze how these structures emerge

and change. In this regard, Giddens structuration theory may complement transition theory and

by that provide a more robust framework to analyze technological transition processes. Before we

5

5

move on to this discussion (section 4), the next section provide some data that are necessarily to

understand the empirical context used in the analysis.

3 Sustainability transition in the Norwegian car population

Since the beginning of 1990, a range of political measures has been adopted in an attempt to

increase the use of electric vehicles in the Norwegian society. Temporary exemption of vehicle

import duty and value-added tax (VAT), free pass through toll plazas, car ferries free of charge

and the opportunity to use public-transportation lines are among the measures used in this

reorganization (Asphjell et al., 2013). However, the breakthrough of this proactive policy came as

late as in 2012, as figure 1 illustrate.

Figure 1 Registered electric vehicles in Norway, 2010-2016 (Motorvognregisteret, 2017).

Until 2011, the increase in registered electric vehicles was rather slow, but 2012 (9565 registered)

shows an increase of 78 % from 2011 (5381 registered). This redoubling trend of electric vehicles

continued until 2014. Although the relative increase in 2015 and 2016 is less than what we

experienced in the three preceding years, the figures still shows that the Norwegian market for

EVs is growing rapidly. As of January 2016, the increase from 1st of January 2011 is 2920 per

cent. A number of factors contribute to this ongoing transformation, but two factors are in

particular worth mentioning. Firstly, in 2012 the government reached a settlement that secured

exemption of value added taxes (VAT) and vehicle import duty on electric cars till 2018 or until

electric cars makes up 50 000 of the Norwegian car population. In contrast to former measures,

3347 5381 9565 19678

42352

73312

101126

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

6

6

this settlement gave the consumers improved economic conditions due to stability and

predictability in the market. Secondly, EVs have improved significantly from a technological

perspective in recent years. This includes advancements in battery technology, reliability in

operation, design and infrastructure that have strengthened the competitive advantage of electric

vehicles relatively to conventional vehicles. Drawing on the multilevel perspective from the

transition literature, these technological advancements have been developed relatively isolated

from market pressure at the niche level over the last decades. At the same time, policy regulations

and investment in complementary infrastructure represent changes in the socio-technical regime

that currently function as a space for diffusion of electric vehicles. The sociotechnical regime is

in turn influenced by broader environmental concerns at the landscape level, particularly in

political circles. Changes at these different levels also illustrate the concept of co-evolution, in

this case mainly related to technological and political forces. Later in this paper, the ongoing EV-

transformation is analyzed more thoroughly, indicating that other forces than merely

technological and political are relevant for the transformation (see section 4).

3.1 Sustainability Transition or Artificial Market?

In Norway, the current socio-technical regime undeniably enables diffusion of EVs, yet the

question remains how vulnerable the market for EVs is? The government has announced that

some of the incentives to buy EVs most likely will be removed. There is some uncertainty in this

regard due to an upcoming general election the fall 2017, however considerable changes in the

policy regarding EVs should be expected. The impact of this policy becomes apparent if we

compare the Norwegian passenger car sale to other Scandinavian countries that are rather similar

to Norway in other relevant socio-technical aspects (see figure 2)

7

7

Figure 2: New car sale in Scandinavia, 2016, based on energy input. Fossil includes petrol, diesel and gas.

Clean energy includes electricity, hydrogen, hybrid and plugin hybrid (OFV, 2017).

Figure 2 shows that more than 40 per cent of the passenger cars sold in Norway in 2016 were so-

called clean-energy cars. In Sweden and Denmark the clean-energy category accounted for less

10 per cent. These figures clearly show how policy influences the reception of new technologies

by altering the socio-technical regime. This data should however not been mistaken with the total

number of clean-energy vehicles in the Norwegian car population, a number that is significantly

lower due to the relatively long lifespan of vehicles. Still, the new car sale figures indicates that

there is an ongoing transformation that eventually will lead to a more sustainable car population.

If the incentives to buy electric vehicle is removed, there will be two conceivable outcomes, 1)

removal of current political measures will ruin the “artificial” market for electric vehicles, or 2)

the current political measures have forced electric vehicles through the difficult market

introduction stage and created a self-sustaining long-term change, indicating that adoption of

electric vehicles will continue. In the next section, these two conceivable outcomes will be

analyzed in more detail using a mixed theoretical framework based on structuration theory and

sustainability transition theory.

59,8

92,6 96,3

40,2

7,4 3,7

0 %

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Norway Sweden Denmark

Fossil Clean energy

8

8

4 Giddens Role in Sociotechnical Regimes

During the 1960s the car became common property in the Norwegian society (Monsrud, 1999).

To date, all aspects of society are made-to-measure the conventional car and therefore deeply

embedded in the socio-technical regime. This includes road and fuel infrastructure, workshops

and maintenance, knowledge about cars, in particular self-taught competency and experience

based knowledge. Additionally, there are a lot of intangible conceptions related to habits and

user-preferences, as well as symbolic and cultural meaning. This may include notions of freedom

and flexibility and ideations about engine output, reliability and resiliency that favor conventional

vehicles at the expense of electric vehicles. Some of these aspects are easily transmissible to

electric vehicles, such as road infrastructure (not fuel), freedom and flexibility, while others

might be more difficult to transfer, for example user-preferences and knowledge. In other words,

the socio-technical regime for EVs does to some extent overlap with the socio-technical regime

for conventional vehicles. However, it is the discrepancy between the existing tangible and

intangible structures related to conventional vehicles and the structural novelty connected to its

electric counterpart that challenges adoption and diffusion. In order to mitigate this discrepancy,

new configurations in the sociotechnical regime must occur, and more importantly consolidate.

As already mentioned, the proactive policy has undoubtedly transformed the sociotechnical

regime for EVs by giving consumers strong economic incentives to change their actions towards

more sustainable choices. Even in cases where the decision of buying an electric vehicle seemed

contradictory to embedded structures (i.e. user-preferences), the political incentives have coerced

such actions. However, in Giddens understanding the agents have to replace structures by

genuinely and to some degree collectively change their behavior, instead of merely responding to

reward mechanisms (see section 2). The reasonable explanation would therefore be that removal

of the current incentives would interfere with the ongoing transformation. As a result, the

Norwegian society would return to a socio-technical regime of the past and eventually align with

the adoption rate of their Scandinavian neighbors (see figure 2). However, this is not likely to

happen because the economic incentives have paved the way for other structural changes in the

socio-technical regime. Some of these changes are rather obvious, such as parallel public

investment in complementary infrastructure. Other structural changes have taken place on a more

intangible level, such as user-preferences and other predetermined conceptions of the electric

vehicle (e.g. range anxiety). Changes in these intangible structures are also part of the explanation

9

9

why more than 40 per cent of the cars sold in Norway in 2016 were based on clean-energy. The

importance of changes in such intangible structures is well known from the innovation literature,

for example in Everett Rogers seminal work (1962) Diffusion of Innovation. According to

Rogers’s terminology, the first individuals to buy electric vehicles are the innovators and the

early adopters. These people generally have a high social status and financial liquidity to incur

the risk associated with new innovations. These individuals are opinion leaders that act as

important information hubs about new innovations, in this case EVs. If the information and

feedbacks they communicate is positive, the innovation will most likely be adopted by members

of the society that usually approach new innovations with a higher degree of skepticism. Drawing

on Giddens terminology, the early adopters display a high degree of reflexivity and through that

produces new structures that deviate from conventional structures, in this case a number of

misconceptions regarding electric vehicles. Consequently, the early adopters are in the vanguard

of changing old structures that potentially would constitute socio-technical configurations that

could hamper further adoption of EVs. Finally, it is important to mention that most of the early

adopters themselves initially were influenced to buy electric vehicles due to economic incentives

imposed by the government. These incentives can therefore be seen as an efficient instrument to

establish new structures rather than merely a reward mechanism for environmentally sound

behavior. From a structuration theory perspective, this is an important analytical element since

temporary reward mechanisms per se usually are insufficient for structural change as emphasized

above. The proactive EV-policy should instead be interpreted as a bundle of enforced structures

that are used to change individual agency, which eventually creates new structures with the

potential to guide other members of the society in the same direction. The socio-technical regime

for EVs in Norway will therefore continue to be rather different than Sweden and Denmark even

if the government decides to remove important incentives to choose electric vehicles instead of

conventional cars.

10

10

5 Bourdieu, symbolic power and dominance

So far, Giddens structuration theory has been used to show how emerging structures can

influence on individual purchasing decisions. Giddens understanding of structural change can

however been criticized for being too concerned with questions regarding critical mass. In his

theory, critical mass can be understood as the number of people that are needed to induce and

sustain structural change. In other words the critical mass perspective aims to explain change

processes through quantifications. The weakness with this perspective is that it neglects the initial

process leading up to a so called “critical mass”. Consequently there are arguably important

qualitative and temporal aspects in change processes that are poorly addressed in Giddens

structuration theory.

To address this gap, Pierre Bourdieu’s work on social and cultural domination is a good point of

departure (Bourdieu, 1989). Bourdieu argues that individuals and groups in a social system are

positioned in a hierarchy based on their social, economic and cultural capital. According to

Bourdieu, individuals with high capital tend to determine taste and preferences in the society

through symbolic power (Bourdieu, 1989). Symbolic power is not practiced directly through

force, but rather describe the tacit power relations that occur between a dominant and a

dominated class. In this power relationship, the habitus (behavior, acts, thoughts, etc.) of the

dominant class largely determines taste and preferences (e.g. clothes, food, art, etc.) that the

dominated class will struggle to adopt or conform to. In Bourdieu’s work, the social status of

individuals and groups therefore play a significant role as trendsetters in many different areas.

This theory can help explain the dynamics of change processes at a much deeper level than the

critical mass approach. For example, it can be used to explain why individuals conform to new

social structures in cases where a critical mass (initially) is absent. It can also be used to analyze

why certain social structures (e.g. trends, preferences etc.) emerge and consolidate while others

fail to diffuse.

One of Bourdieu’s arguments in La Distinction (1979) is that new structures are more likely to

diffuse if they correspond to the habitus of class fractions with high social, economic and cultural

capital. This argument is in line with Everett Roger´s theory “diffusion of innovations” from

1962, where he precisely demonstrates the role of status and power in diffusion of new ideas and

technologies. Even though Bourdieu and Rogers agree that status is essential in terms of

11

11

influencing other people to make similar decisions, they explain the social dynamics in slightly

different ways. Rogers argue that people with high social status are important due to their

credibility as opinion leaders. Still, he believes that people make deliberate choices based on the

information provided to them by these highly credible opinion leaders. This notion of convincing

is not that relevant in Bourdieu’s work as he believe that the relationship between the dominant

and the dominated class is part of a much more tacit and partly subconscious process. For

Bourdieu, individuals and groups expose information about their placement in the social

hierarchy through habitus (everyday actions, taste, preferences etc.). Furthermore, people will

continuously try to redefine their own position in the social hierarchy by dissociating themselves

from individuals and groups with lower status. This involves imitating the habitus of people with

higher positions in the social hierarchy. In practice, this typically involve buying similar

consumer goods, attending certain events, doing the same sports, adopting their political views

and so on. Eventually, people with high social status will find new ways to distinguish

themselves from imitators, creating a process of constant struggle for positions in the social

hierarchy, a power relationship between the dominant and the dominated.

The power relationship Bourdieu describe in La Distinction (1979) provides a more analytical

basis for the empirical discussion. The Norwegian EV-transformation accelerated in 2012 (see

figure 1), the same year Tesla lunched their full-sized Model S. Although a number of other EV

brands are becoming increasingly popular in Norway now, Tesla was amongst the first to

introduce a luxury car in the realm of electric vehicles. The technology and design of Model S is

perceived as aesthetically appealing, superior and part of the the same league as other luxury or

semi-luxury brands such as Porsche and Mercedes. According to a survey conducted by TNS

Gallup (2015), the typical Tesla owner is:

Male (just 7 percent female owners)

Well educated, 7/10 are academics

Good average income, more than 2/3 had an annual income over 700 000

High status jobs, more than 50 percent hold management positions

77 percent have more than one car

These characteristics draw a picture of someone that hold relatively high positions in the social

hierarchy. Consequently, it is likely that many of these early adopters of Tesla cars are part of the

dominant class. This is partly due to their economic capital, but maybe more importantly their

12

12

cultural capital. The latter argument is based on the fact that 7/10 is academics, which according

to Bourdieu is a group that typically is high on cultural capital (Blunden, 2004). More

importantly however is the dominated class which utilizes this particular car as an instrument to

position themselves higher in the social hierarchy. Drawing on Bourdieu’s theory, these

individuals have a desire to appear as intelligent, smart and successful persons, and the car is

therefore used strategically to mimic the habitus of the social elite. Even though they imitate the

social elite, they will most likely never be part of this class fraction as their individual habitus are

different from the prevailing habitus in the social elite. According to Bourdieu, habitus is highly

difficult to change as it involves an internal form of learning and socialization process that starts

at a very young age (Blunden, 2004). This makes it highly difficult for people in specific class

fractions to become “insiders” in social classes that are higher in the hierarchy. It is likely that the

dominated class eventually will expose their habitus through acts, preferences, values and so on.

For the dominated class, this could typically include a sole focus on the materialistic aspects of

the car to show their economic status, whereas the dominant habitus could be more concerned

with environmental responsibility which relates to their cultural capital. This is a typical example

of how your true habitus can be exposed. When this happen, it will restore the social distance

between the dominant and the dominated class.

Brining in Bourdieu’s concept of dominance contributes to explain why the share of electric

vehicles in the Norwegian car population is increasing at the pace we experience. Based on the

discussion above, it is likely that EVs act as a medium to express social status and trough that

contributes to further accelerate adoption of EVs in Norway. These social mechanisms remained

uncovered in the initial empirical discussion of this paper, as neither Gidden’s structuration

theory nor Rogers’s theory diffusion of innovations is particularly useful to analyze these aspects.

13

13

6 Concluding Remarks

By applying structuration theory to inform transition theory, this paper suggests that the socio-

technical regime for EVs in Norway will remain rather strong despite repeals in the current

political landscape. Politically enforced structures have led to changes in human agency which in

turn have produced new structures for individuals to act upon. For certain people, the political

incentives still represents the decisive structures, indicating that removal of these incentives will

slow down the ongoing transformation. However, as long as some consumers keep on buying

electric vehicles, new structures regarding user-preferences will emerge and eventually

consolidate. As a result, the market for EVs in Norway will likely continue to co-exist with the

conventional vehicle market. At some point, the number of EVs (or other clean energy vehicles)

might even exceed to number of conventional vehicles. Still, one important question remains. To

what extent does this technological transition represent “sustainability”?

Creating a competitive market for EVs in Norway is seen by the government as an important

strategy to cut emission and drive the society towards sustainability. The common belief among

politicians, consumers and even some academics is that EVs represent an environmental

substitute to conventional vehicles based on fossil fuel. Even though the output of electric

vehicles is altogether clean, scientists question the overall environmental performance of EVs

compared to conventional cars. Due to the present global energy composition, Hawkins et al.

(2012) provide evidence that electric vehicles are less environmentally sound than conventional

cars. Their life-cycle assessment reveals that the energy demand involved in manufacturing and

operation of EVs surpass the positive effects of local zero-emissions (Hawkins et al., 2012).

Globally, production of electricity form fossil sources, particularly coal-fired power, will

currently cover the added demand for electricity caused by the manufacturing and operation of

electric vehicles. As a result, their study concludes that conventional cars in many cases are more

sustainable than EVs. The sustainable potential of EVs is however significant, but this depends

on a simultaneous transition towards production of renewable electricity. This raises an

interesting issue regarding the relationship between science and politics. Are policies sustainable

because it reflects the general opinion, or is it sustainable because political action is rooted in

scientific evidence?

14

14

7 References

Asphjell, A., Asphjell, Ø., Kvisle, H. (2013) Elbil på norsk. Ukjent forlag.

Blunden, A. (2004) Bourdieu on Status, Class and Culture. Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1989) Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, 7 (1).

Geels, F. W., (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Insights

about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33, pp.

897-920.

Geels, F. W., Hekkert, M. P., & Jacobsson, S. (2008) The dynamics of sustainable innovation

journeys. Technological Analysis & Strategic Management, 20 (5), pp. 521-536.

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Polity, Cambridge.

Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G., Strømman, A. H. (2012) Comparative

Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles. Journal of

Industrial Ecoology. 17 (1).

Hodgson, G. M. (1993) Institutional Economics: Surveying the “old” and the “new”.

Meteroeconomica. 44 (1-28).

Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J. (2007) Transition management as a model for managing

processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable

Development and World Ecology. 14, (1-15).

Markard. J., Truffer, B. (2008) Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective:

Towards an integrated framework. Research Policy. 37 (596-615).

Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012) Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of

research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41, pp. 955-967.

Monsrud, J. (1999) Bilen ble allemannseie i 1960. Statistisk Sentralbyrå.

Motorvognregisteret. (2017) Totalt antall elbiler og ladbare hybrider registrert i Norge.

Tilgjengelig: http://elbil.no/elbil-2/elbilstatistikk/

15

15

Opplysningsrådet for Veitrafikken AS. (2017). Bilåret 2016 – status og trender. OFV

Frokostmøte 10. jan, 2017. Tilgjengelig: http://www.ofv.no/forside/

Rip, A., Kemp, R. (1998) Technological change. In: S. Rayner & E.L. Malone (Eds.), Human

choice and climate change. Vol. II, Resources and technology. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, pp.

327-399.

Rogers, E. M. (1962) Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.). Free Press of Glencoe, New York

Rogers, E. M. (2002) The Nature of Technology Transfer. Science Communication, 23 (3).

TNS Gallup (2015) Dette skiller Tesla-eierne fra andre bileiere. Tilgjengelig:

http://www.klikk.no/motor/bil/dette-skiller-tesla-eierne-fra-andre-bileiere-2854712

Yates, J. (1997) Using Giddens Structuration Theory to Inform Business History. Business and

Economic History. 26 (1).

Whittington, R. (1992) Putting Giddens into action: Social systems and managerial agency.

Journal of Management Studies. 26 (6).