Understanding local destabilization policies in the mobility sector: A comparison of mobility governance in Amsterdam, London and Munich

There is a growing scholarly consensus that sustainable transformations of socio-technical systems require a mix of policy measures that both support niche innovations and destabilize the existing regime structure (Kivimaa und Kern 2016; Rosenbloom und Rinscheid 2020). While the existing literature has largely focused on the niche promotion side (Smith und Raven 2012), destabilization policies have attracted the increasing attention recently (Turnheim 2022). However, the multifaceted character of destabilization policies has not yet been properly understood and conceptualized. Moreover, the majority of studies have investigated destabilization policies at the national level while the distinctive character of destabilization efforts at the local level has remained largely unexplored (as exceptions see Bjerkan et al. 2021; Kuss und Nicholas 2022; Graaf et al. 2021). In this paper, we seek to advance the conceptual and empirical understanding of local destabilization policies in the mobility sector. The mobility sector has proved particularly challenging to decarbonize over the past decades (Berger et al. 2014). While destabilization policies in the mobility sector can be found at different government levels, cities have a particularly important role to play in transforming the mobility system (Betsill und Bulkeley 2007). To this end, cities can employ a variety of policy instruments and strategies to destabilize the dependence on internal combustion engine cars or to entirely move away from car-based mobility systems. We first conduct a systematic review of the literature to develop a novel conceptualization of the different types of destabilization policies in the mobility sector at the local level. We then apply the proposed framework to demonstrate its value and qualitatively scrutinize the destabilization mobility policies in three major European cities: London, Amsterdam and Munich. The three selected cities have made considerable progress in transforming their mobility systems but also exhibit differences in terms of the broader context and specific challenges in transforming urban mobility. This offers a good setting for understanding how destabilization policies are designed and implemented in different urban contexts. Our study yields important new conceptual and empirical insights into different designs of destabilization policy in the mobility sector at the local level and the factors that contribute to the emergence and effectiveness of different destabilization policy instruments.