Food Governance and Systemic Transformations

Course manual 2025/2026

Course content

Globally, food systems are in crisis. As of recently, major concerns about nitrogen emissions by Dutch agriculture have induced policies which on their turn have triggered major concerns and protests. How come problems could get so much out of hand? Is it conceivable to deal with these problems in a less contested, yet effective way? If so, under what conditions?

Also more generally, are we capable, with the current production system, to provide the future world population with sufficient food in a sustainable way, or is a system change needed to deal with this complex issue? And since our food production and consumption have important relations with energy and water issues, we could expand this question to include the energy and water system as well. In the first year of Future Planet Studies, students have been taught about a system perspective on sustainability. But how to study systems critically and, when they turn out to fulfill their function sub-optimally, how to transform them into an improved system. For these things, we need intermediary theories. We will focus on the food system, but what is learned will have relevance for other systems too.

The course introduces three bodies of intermediary theory: governance theory, system innovation studies and modernization theory. In doing so, it also provides an introduction to transition studies and governance literature, as well as to modernization theories. These issues will be synthesized into the method of reflexive design, which you may use in practice to collaboratively develop system innovation projects. This method, building on notions from and findings obtained in terms of the Multi-Level-Perspective (MLP) from transition studies, helps to design projects while anticipating and dealing with inertia and resistance.
Empirically, various cases will be discussed. In order to have a sound background understanding of current food systems, the modernization of food production in the Netherlands and the EU will be discussed, with due attention to the roots and nature of the nitrogen crisis. That discussion will also be used to explore basic notions from transition studies and governance theory. We will then further deepen our understanding of governance on the basis of several examples of transnational governance.

In the second part of the course, we will turn our attention to ‘doing’ governance for system innovation, empirically drawing on well-documented cases from EU countries. This will help us understand how to promote niche developments and connect them to ongoing changes in the incumbent regime. That understanding provides a further background for discussing reflexive design in the context of contemporary problems. We will explore and learn about the use of that method by applying it to contemporary challenges such as diversification of crop production and alternative organization and governance of the food chain.

Study materials

Literature

• Bevir, Mark (2009). Key concepts in governance. London etc.: SAGE.

• Research articles and reports.

Objectives

• Students have a thorough understanding of governance and transition theories.
• Students have the competence to use this knowledge to critically engage in discussions on current food-related issued and reflect on existing solutions for these issues.
• Students have the competence to structure the issue and design feasible and acceptable solutions, integrating knowledge and expertise from different disciplines with the views and local knowledge of (non-academic) stakeholders to arrive at realistic solutions within global food systems.
• Students have additional knowledge, competences and skills to critically assess and build arguments regarding an issue at hand and to learn how to develop a personal, science-based view on this subject.

Teaching methods

• Lecture
• Seminar

In general, the first session in a particular week will be a lecture. While there will be room for interaction, the teacher will do most of the talking and the session will be structured by his powerpoint presentation. This presentation will be published on Canvas before the session. These lectures serve especially objectives #1 and #2 by introducing theories and critically discussing them.  They also occasionally contribute to objectives #3 and #4, through discussing examples

The second session in a week while the teachers will give feedback, students will do most of the talking, and the session will be structured by student inputs. The precise nature of these inputs will differ between weeks. The first four weeks it will be individual notes, submitted before the lecture. Some of these will be picked as a start for the discussion; other students will then be encouraged to relate these to their own ones. These sessions primarily serve objectives #1 (b y deepening understanding)  and increasingly also #2 (by relating theory to empirics). In the final three weeks, each week one third of the students will prepare, in a small group, a presentation as a start of the discussion.  These sessions contribute to objectives #3 and #4, thus preparing for the final assignment.

Learning activities

Attendance

Additional requirements for this course:

Additional requirements for this course:
Attendance of all course sessions (lectures and tutorials) is strongly advised. As explained above under ‘teaching methods’, these sessions contribute to achieving learning objectives 1 to 4 of the course. Reasoned absence must be announced before the session involved.

Assessment

Assessment comprises three elements:
• in weeks 1-4, students will write individual brief essay (about 800 words, excluding references) papers, in which students discuss theoretical concepts and insights and relate them to an empirical example.
• In weeks 5-7, all students will once contribute to a small group, preparing a 20 minute presentation, which discusses an empirical example to be discussed at the second course session of a particular week on basis of literature. These presentations will serve as a start of the discussion during that session. They also prepare for the final paper.
• In week 8, all students produce a final paper (2500-3000 words) on one of the topics discussed in weeks 5-7.
Individual brief essays must be submitted no later than the Wednesday of that week, 23.00 hrs. Presentations must be ready during that week's tutorial, schedule will be made during tutorials in week 3. Deadline final paper: Friday, Oct 25th.

Further specification in table below.

Assessment diagram

Students that were enrolled in the course in previous years

If students have been enrolled in the course before, only results from last year (2023-2024) can be used as dispensation, provided that at least one of the three partial grades (average of individual essays*; presentation; final paper) is above 5.5.

*if your average grade for all essays was <5.5 last year, you may not submit any of these again, unless substantially rewritten. Please clearly indicate the extent of your revisions (using colors or track changes).

These students are still strongly advised to join all lectures and seminars; when in doubt please contact your teacher.

Inspection of assessed work

All results and feedback will be communicated through Canvas.

Assignments

A) Individual essays

In weeks 1-4, following your readings and lecture, you will write an essay relating insights and concepts from literature to an example. More specific instructions will be available on Canvas, available at least one week before the deadline.
Two essays will be graded, within a week, (one from the first two weeks, one from weeks 3 and 4), the others will be given a 'fail' or a ' pass' Essays account for 40% of the final grade, the first counts for 15%, the second for 25% so that students may ‘ learn the job’. On the first graded essay, brief written individual feedback will be given (through Canvas).
Also, during the tutorials, plenary discussions, which will heavily rely on the essays, will yield important further feedback, underlining and elaborating salient observations and discussing misunderstandings and difficulties.
If the average of all assignments is lower than a 5.5, a resit must be done before submitting the final paper. Otherwise, no resit is possible. Essays marked with a ‘fail’ also have to be rewritten in order to complete the course.

Assessment criteria for brief essays:
• Correct language (spelling / grammar / sentence construction
• The literature and lecture as specified in the assignment for that week should be used.
• Concepts and insights are formulated and used sharply and accurately, referring with accuracy to the publication used.
• Meets the assignment’s specified objective by making one or several salient points, based on analytically sharp argumentation

B) Group presentations

In weeks 5-7, each student will once participate in preparing and giving a group presentation which relates literature of that particular week to the topic that students in this group have picked for their final assignments. This will help you develop the final paper. More specific instructions will be published on Canvas. The presentation should have a length between 15 and 20 minutes. After that, you are expected to open and moderate a discussion with your fellow students on a topic discussed in your presentation. Make sure to trigger the discussion by positing an interesting statement or question. Be creative in finding ways to create a lively discussion.  Presentations must be ready during that week's tutorial and will be assessed within a week; in addition to feedback during the session, some brief feedback will be provided (along with the grade) to the students who prepared it. The presentation counts for 20% of the overall grade. No resit is possible; a fail may be compensated through grades on the essays and final paper.

Assessment criteria for presentations:
• Concepts and insights from literature must presented and used with analytical accuracy
• Properly relate concepts and insights from literature empirical data
• Professional powerpoint: correct language, clear structure, good use of visuals.
• Must enable an analytically sound group discussion by making at least one salient thesis and one good question on the issue specified for the presentation.

c) Final paper

You will write a final paper on one of the three broad themes discussed in weeks 5-7, approaching it from both transition theory (draw from literature on the Multi-Level Perspective) and governance theory (draw from Bevir and other governance-related literature) to develop a view on the issue and an outline for a conceivable solution. You are advised to focus on an empirical case, which you analyse from a theoretical framework based on the literature discussed during the course. Brief extra guidance on the structure of the final paper is provided during the tutorial in week 6.
In the weeks (5-7) leading up to the paper, you are expected to answer some questions on Canvas about the progress you made in the process of writing the final paper. These are intended to help you start in time with the final assignment, and assist you in developing your thoughts and the direction of your paper.
You are not allowed to use the same empirical case as the one you’ve used in your presentation. You may draw upon the presentations, but only if you refer to them as an academic source, in accordance to normal academic ethics.
If the average of the final paper is lower than a 5.5, a resit must be done in order to complete the course. Otherwise, no resit is possible. The maximum grade for the resit is a 7.

Assessment criteria for final paper:
• Correct language (spelling / grammar / sentence construction
• Active and accurate use of theoretical concepts or insights from at least 6 chapters from Bevir as well as 4 articles discussed in weeks 5-7.
• Empirical analysis must be grounded in at least one academic article on the topic not discussed in this course (from e.g. sustainability studies, development studies, rural studies etc.), and contain some self-gathered data: one interview or three secondary sources (databases, policy documents, mass media, websites etc.)
• Integrates concepts and insights from transition studies and governance literature with each other and with empirical knowledge
• Makes one or several salient points on the issue and proposes an outline for a conceivable solution, demonstrating comprising an analytically informed and critical, view on the topic.
• Substantive demonstration of progress on selecting topic, connecting literature and empirical case etc. as assessed in preparatory questions in week 5-7.

Fraud and plagiarism

The 'Regulations governing fraud and plagiarism for UvA students' applies to this course. This will be monitored carefully. Upon suspicion of fraud or plagiarism the Examinations Board of the programme will be informed. For the 'Regulations governing fraud and plagiarism for UvA students' see: www.student.uva.nl

Course structure

Additional information

Full biographic data on literature

Literature/materials

 Most articles are accessible online – for those which are not, see our Canvas page [Modules – Literature] for pdf’s to be downloaded.
• Bevir, Mark (2009). Key concepts in governance. London etc.: SAGE.
• Bos, Bram (A.P.) & John Grin, (2012). Reflexive interactive design as an instrument for dual track governance, Ch. 7 (p. 132-153) in: Barbier M. and Elzen B. (eds), System Innovations, Knowledge Regimes, and Design Practices towards Sustainable Agriculture. Paris: INRA
• Cusworth, George, Tara Garnett, Jamie Lorimer, Agroecological break out: Legumes, crop diversification and the regenerative futures of UK agriculture, Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 88, 2021, p. 126-137, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.10.005.
• de Haan, J. (Hans), Jan Rotmans (2011). ‘ Patterns in transitions: Understanding complex chains of change’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 78, p. 90–102
• Deakin, Mark, Davide Diamantini and Nunzia Borrelli (eds., 2016) The Governance of City Food Systems: Case Studies From Around the World. Milano: Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli.
• Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. W. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399-417
• Grin, John (2008). ‘The Multi-Level Perspective and the design of system innovations’, chapter 3 ( 47-80) in: J.C.J.M. van den Bergh & F. Bruinsma (eds. in association with R. Vreeker & A. Idenburg), Managing the transition to renewable energy: theory and macro-regional practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. [see Canvas - Modules - Literature]
• Grin, John, 2010: “Understanding Transitions from a Governance Perspective”, Part III,) in: Grin, John; Rotmans, Jan; Schot, Johan, 2010: Transitions to Sustainable Development. New Directions in the Study of Long Term Structural Change (New York: Routledge): 223–314. [see Canvas - Modules - Literature]
• Grin, John, Johan Schot, Jan Rotmans (2011), ‘On patterns and agency in transition dynamics: Some key insights from the KSI programme.’ Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1, no 1, p. 76-81.
• Grin, John (2012), ‘Between governments, kitchens, firms and farms: the governance of transitions between societal practices and supply systems.’ Chapter 2 (p. 35-56) in: Spaargaren, Gert, Anne Loeber, and Peter Oosterveer (eds.) (2012). Food Practices in Transition. Changing Food Consumption, Retail and Production in the Age of Reflexive Modernity. Part III of the series on Transitions towards a Sustainable Development. [see Canvas - Modules - Literature]
• Grin, John (2016), ‘Transition Studies: Basic Ideas and Analytical Approaches’, chapter 4 (p. 105-122) in: Hans Günter Brauch, Úrsula Oswald Spring, John Grin, Jürgen Scheffran (Eds.): Sustainability Transition and Sustainable Peace Handbook. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace 10 (Heidelberg – New York – Dordrecht – London: Springer-Verlag, 2016). [online access through UvA digital library]
• Hoffman, Jesse & Anne Loeber (2016): Exploring the Micropolitics in Transitions from a Practice Perspective: The Case of Greenhouse Innovation in the Netherlands, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, vol. 18, no 5, p. 692-711
• Romera, A.J., A.P. Bos, M. Neal, C.R. Eastwood, D. Chapman, W. McWilliam, D. Royds, C. O'Connor, R. Brookes, J. Connolly, P. Hall, P.W. Clinton, ‘Designing future dairy systems for New Zealand using reflexive interactive design,’Agricultural Systems, Volume 181, 102818, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102818. [See Canvas – Modules – Literature]
• Schot, Johan W.; Geels, Frank W., 2010: “The dynamics of transitions: a sociohisotrical perspective”, in: Grin, John; Rotmans, Jan; Schot, Johan (with contributions by Geels, Frank; Loorbach, Derk), Part I; Transitions to Sustainable Development. New Directions in the Study of Long Term Structural Change (New York: Routledge), p. 11-101. [see Canvas - Modules - Literature]
• Smith, Adrian, 2007: “Translating sustainabilities between green niches and sociotechnical regimes”, in: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19,4: 427–450.
• Smith, Adrian, Jan-Peter Voß and John Grin (2010), ‘Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of adopting a broad perspective, and its challenges’, Research Policy, 39, p. 435-448
• Smith, Adrian; Raven, Rob, 2012: “What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability”, in: Research Policy, 41,6: 1025–1036
• Sørensen, Mads P. & Alan Christiansen (2013). Ulrich Beck: An Introduction to the Theory of Second Modernity and the Risk Society New York: Routledge. Chapter 3 (p. 26-39): The Theory of Second Modernity: Ulrich Beck’s Diagnosis of Contemporary Modernity. [See Canvas – Modules – Literature]
• Swagemakers, Paul, Pierluigi Milone and Flaminia Ventura, “Resilient farmers’ strategies and policy regulations: The quest for modernization on Dutch and Italian dairy farms’, , p. 132-142 in: Elzen, B., A. Augustyn, M. Barbier and B. van Mierlo, 2017. AgroEcological Transitions: Changes and Breakthroughs in the Making. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18174/407609 [See Canvas – Modules – Literature]
• Termeer, Catrien J.A.M., Scott Drimie, John Ingram, Laura Pereira, Mark J. Whittingham (2018). A diagnostic framework for food system governance arrangements: The case of South Africa. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 84, p. 85–93.
• Wisserhof, J. (2000) Agricultural Policy Making in the Netherlands: Beyond Corporatist Policy Arrangements? In: Tatenhove, J. van, Arts, B. & Leroy, P. (eds.) Political Modernisation and the Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (p.175-197) [see Canvas - Modules - Literature]

We vinden het belangrijk dat je je op de UvA en bij Future Planet Studies veilig voelt. Krijg je onverhoopt te maken met ongewenst gedrag of voel je je onveilig, dan kun je terecht bij verschillende personen. Je melding wordt altijd vertrouwelijk behandeld. Kijk op onze website voor meer informatie over waar en bij wie je terecht kunt.

It is important that everyone feels safe at the UvA and Future Planet Studies. We are committed to provide social safety and we offer various forms of support for people experiencing inappropriate or unsafe situations. Consult the UvA website or Future Planet Studies Canvas page for more information and contact info.

Last year's student feedback

The course has been well evaluated. Especially the weekly rhythm of self-study of literature - lecture - prepare essay / presentation - working group was seen as really helpful, offering students a sense of making real steps in understanding. While the workload in this course is rather flat, students experience that it is important to keep track consistently, especially since missing the lectures makes it more difficult to appreciate the relations between and the key messages of literature.

Contact information

Coordinator

• prof. dr. J. Grin

Staff

• J.V. Rothuizen
• J. van der Klei