Shaping Smart Mobility Futures

Governance and Policy Instruments in times of Sustainability Transitions

Alexander Paulsson, Claus Hedegaard Sørensen, Alexander Paulsson, Claus Hedegaard Sørensen

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781839826528
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Transportation & Navigation
• Index: Technology & Engineering

Smart mobility includes automation, shared mobility services and other new forms of mobility made possible by digital technologies. This book argues that smart mobility will only be developed in a desired direction and fulfil global sustainability goals if it is steered in that direction. There is a vast body of literature on public policy and policy instruments, and there are many different conceptualisations and categorisations. Applying an open and broad approach, whereby a variety of policy instruments that are used to govern smart mobility are introduced and discussed, this book is ideal for both professionals and researchers. The book is organised into three parts: the first part explores why there is a need for policy instruments in relation to smart mobility, the second part examines how policy instruments are chosen and developed, and the third part explores what policy instruments are doing and what smart mobility is doing to them. Of the policy instruments used today, many focus on producing knowledge for governments and thereby making smart mobility governable. Because of the difficulties with implementing policy instruments that make the transport sector more sustainable, the book concludes by discussing in which ways citizen deliberation can breathe new life into the debate.

Chapter 1

Smart Mobility and Policy Instruments: Broadened Definitions and Critical Understandings

Alexander Paulsson and Claus Hedegaard Sørensen

ABSTRACT

The point of departure of this book is that smart mobility will only be developed in a desired direction and fulfil societal objectives if it is steered in that direction. The market, left to itself, will most certainly not deliver on these objectives. This message has been conveyed extensively in recent literature, but this book aims to take this discussion one step further by focussing on what governance of smart mobility looks like today and in the future. In this introductory chapter, the authors provide a framework of different understandings of policy instruments, how they are selected, developed and used. After the array of policy instruments within the transport sector has been extensively discussed, the authors turn to discussing a broader understanding of policy instruments found within political science and political sociology. In doing so, this book contributes to the critical scholarship on policy instruments, while exploring the why, the how and the what of policy instruments in relation to smart mobility. The chapter closes with a brief introduction to the structure of the book as well as a description of the content of each chapter.

Keywords: Smart mobility; policy instruments; governance; transport policy; political objectives; sustainable mobility

Introduction

In recent years, the advent of autonomous vehicles, the roll-out of electrification and the introduction of shared mobility solutions have influenced the public debate as well as academic conferences and publications within the field of mobility and transport. While these developments differ in terms of both technologies and business models, the notions of ‘smart mobility’ and ‘smart transport’ are increasingly applied as synonyms of mobility and transport futures. Included in smart mobility futures are, for example, autonomous and connected vehicles, shared platform-based mobility such as car-sharing, bike-sharing, ride-sharing, combined mobility like Mobility as a Service, as well as electrification (Papa & Lauwers, 2015). The term ‘smart’ is currently used in connection with a multitude of devices (smart phone, smart television and smart card), and ‘“smart” is the order of the day’ as one author stressed (Lyons, 2018, p. 2). There is considerable political and industry-related enthusiasm for this development (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015; Herrmann, Brenner, & Stadler, 2018; Seba, 2014). However, public debate and academic publications to an increasing extent stress that smart mobility might also be counterproductive, for example, regarding sustainability, congestion, attractiveness of cities, etc. (Docherty, Marsden, & Anable, 2018; Marsden & Reardon, 2018; Schiller, 2016). It is indeed contestable whether ‘smart mobility’ really is smart.

Landmark studies within the field include several transport model studies focussing on specific cities carried out by International Transport Forum. Studies have been conducted for Lisbon, Auckland, Helsinki, and Dublin (International Transport Forum, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2018) and have inspired similar studies in other cities (COWI & PTV, 2019). The main conclusion from these studies is that sharing is necessary to achieve societal objectives using new technologies, and sharing in combination with public transport can contribute to reducing the number of cars, traffic volume, parking spaces, congestion, pollution, CO₂ emissions, etc. Though the studies have been criticised for applying unrealistic assumptions (Docherty et al., 2018), the studies have both inspired and prompted public authorities (COWI & PTV, 2019) and corporations (e.g. Pietzsch, 2018) to launch initiatives on shared and combined mobility.

A Need for Governance?

Based in the modelling studies mentioned above as well as several real-world pilots and tests, an emerging body of literature has stressed the need for governance of ‘smart’ mobility, not least during the transition process (Docherty et al., 2018; Finger & Audouin, 2018; Marsden & Reardon, 2018). Docherty et al. (2018) have argued that smart mobility can only be developed in a desired direction and fulfil societal objectives if it is steered in that direction. The market, left to itself, will most certainly not deliver on these objectives. Finger and Audouin (2018) as well as Lyons (2018) have stressed a need to align smart mobility with the sustainability paradigm. Docherty et al. (2018) have also argued that there is, in the transport sector, a tradition for public sector involvement that should be applied to govern the transition, while Reardon and Marsden (2018) express an urge to use the current window of opportunity for deliberate considerations and debates on societal goals, suggesting a need for cautiousness before entering into possible, disruptive societal changes.

This book is written and published in a time of climate crisis that probably represents one of the biggest global challenges in the history of mankind. A huge gap exists between, on the one hand, how scientists within the climate field express the need for policy initiatives at all levels of society (Lenton et al., 2019), and on the other hand, the actually implemented policy initiatives, which so far seem insufficient. When it comes to transport and mobility, smart mobility is often envisaged as a solution that enables highly mobile societies with a limited carbon footprint, because mobility is expected to be electrified, shared and more efficient (Seba, 2014). For that reason, achieving smart mobility is often expressed as a goal on its own, and some of the literature on smart mobility is focussed on how to introduce and implement smart mobility solutions, thus overcoming legal obstacles and popular resistance (Bjelfvenstam, 2018; Herrmann et al., 2018). However, the chapters in this volume do not subscribe a priori to this optimistic approach to smart mobility, since smart mobility might also have undesired and unintended consequences. When governance and policy instruments are analysed in this volume, the ambition is not to discuss how to implement smart mobility in the most efficient way, but rather to discuss how smart mobility can be governed so that broader sustainability goals or other societal goals are achieved.

The demand for governance and policy instruments in relation to the smart mobility transition is strongly linked to societal goals introduced in recent years at various levels of society. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are one example (Hildebrandt, 2016; United Nations, 2019) highlighting global ambitions to combat poverty and climate change and to establish wealthy and more equal societies. The Sustainable Development Goals are inspiring national and local public authorities as well as corporations, which in some cases even adopt the SDGs in their vision and mission statements (Ali, Hussain, Zhang, Nurunnabi, & Li, 2018). At the national level, transport policy objectives are established in many countries, including ambitions regarding climate, safety, accessibility, environment and growth (Sørensen & Gudmundsson, 2010). Within other sectors, overarching goals are formulated which also aim to impact decisions within the field of transport. At the regional and municipal levels, a similar trend is observed, a remarkable example being the cities gathered in networks like C40 and ICLEI to achieve climate and sustainability goals (C40, 2019; ICLEI, 2019).

What is a Policy Instrument?

Despite the assumption that political involvement is necessary, surprisingly little is said in the literature about what such governance would look like. Policy instruments are one way that governance is carried out or achieved, and as such, are often imbued with a means-end rationality. While policy instruments are often designed to achieve specific objectives, policy instruments may also be developed and used for fulfiling a wide range of other objectives. The characteristics of the objective generally influence how the policy instrument is designed and implemented (Edmondson, Kern, & Rogge, 2018; Rogge & Reichardt, 2016). Also, the context of a specific policy instrument matters (Sørensen & Paulsson, 2019, in press). For example, during times of relative stability, policy instruments may build on previously implemented instruments, become institutionalised and even mainstream, as it were. During times of rapid transition or unexpected and disruptive socio-technological change, newly designed policy instruments may become obsolete and older instruments may turn out to be counter-productive. In short, both the speed and the direction of socio-technological changes may impact which policy instruments are regarded as suitable and relevant for achieving the desired objectives (see, e.g., Stead & Vaddadi, 2019). In fact, the choice of instrument generally reflects the political and administrative elites’ ideas about the relationship between the governing and the governed (Gössling & Cohen, 2014). Since the choice and design of policy instruments are shaped by political and administrative elites’ ideas as well as broader socio-political developments, policy instruments are often highly politicised (Howlett, 2009; Howlett & Ramesh, 1993; Stead, 2018).

The ambition of this book is to take the call for governance of smart mobility one step further by considering the policy instruments used today and the instruments that might be used in shaping smart mobility futures, thus enabling them to meet the societal objectives like tackling the ongoing climate crisis and achieve the goal of sustainable mobility. As of today, policy instruments used in the transport sector include, but are not limited to, a range of taxes and fees, as well as legislation on traffic and vehicles that includes parking restrictions and land-use planning. In futures of smart mobility, some of these policy instruments might be weakened as the technology makes them either obsolete or redundant. For example, autonomous cars presumably would not have to care about parking restrictions, because they can continue circulating or park outside the city centre. With changing ownership structures and shared forms of mobility solutions, some taxes on vehicle ownership and fuel consumption may prove to be weak instruments to shape travel behaviour. Yet, other policy instruments might be strengthened as the socio-technological changes are more aligned with the objectives of the instruments, for example, taxes or fees based on kilometres travelled. There might also be completely new forms of instruments emerging from the socio-technological changes that public authorities may try to use, or they might want to recalibrate current policy instruments due to the emergence of smart mobility. We see this focus on policy instruments as a new topic within the literature on smart mobility, since it goes beyond the plain call for governance to secure public values.

A framework is developed below to gain an overview of the policy instruments presently used in the transport sector. However, we want to stress that in this book, there is no normative standpoint as regards certain types of policy instruments, nor do we endorse a certain type of knowledge or framework about policy instruments. Instead, the point of departure is broad, and we suggest that policy instruments should be understood as ‘techniques of governance that, one way or another, involve the utilization of state authority or its conscious limitation’ (Howlett, 2005, p. 31). Rather than resorting to functionalist explanations of policy instruments, that is, as rational tools used by governments to achieve clearly defined objectives, we include a range of conceptualisations, from economics and political science to sociology. In doing so, we contribute to the literature by problematising the definition of policy instruments and how they develop, operate and impact their target audience.

In light of such a broad understanding and the multitude of conceptualisations included in this book, we will first discuss policy instruments and instrument categorisations applied within the field of transport, and we will then turn to more recent research, advocating a broader unders...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Chapter 1. Smart Mobility and Policy Instruments: Broadened Definitions and Critical Understandings
• Part I
• Part II
• Part III
• Conclusions
• Index