More than two decades ago, Christopher Freeman wrote about the emergence of a new green techno-economic paradigm (TEP), concluding that: “It is therefore not soon to start thinking about and designing and building institutions and technologies which are likely to combine in a sixth (environmental) TEP” (Freeman, 1992: 207). In the debate which followed the MIT models of the 1970s on the limits to growth (see Meadows et al, 1972), two opposing parties were formed: the ‘pessimists’ (arguing for the ‘zero growth’) and the ‘optimists’ who included the SPRU and the author himself. The latter claimed that growth could and should continue into the 21st century provided two conditions were met: the implementation of a set of institutional changes favouring a different world development path; and the reorientation of the R&D system with a shift in the rate and direction of technical change to secure the first objective. In response to increasing greenhouse effects, much progress had been made mostly due to institutional change rather than to technological change (Freeman, 1992:191). Important outcomes had been already achieved. In Freeman’s view, however, a much bigger effort had to be carried out regarding the improvement and development of new technologies, ICT being a good starting point. However, we wish to emphasize now two basic ideas: the centrality of a set of institutional changes; and the reorientation of the R&D system with a shift in the rate of direction of technical change. It is rather significant that Freeman did not emphasize radical technological innovations to underpin the transition, since his stress was on the general conditions to pave the way for the new green techno-economic paradigm.

--

innovation,sustainability