This paper aims at a better understanding of the governance of the abandonment of socio-technical regimes through the example of the incandescent light bulb phase-out in the European Union and in the Netherlands as one specific case where the EU discontinuation policy has been implemented. In particular, with this paper we focus on the active and intended discontinuation of a socio-technical regime through dedicated governance. We approached the phase-out of the incandescent light bulb from a qualitative perspective and analysed about 230 documents from the EU and Dutch level. The study has an explorative character, for we cannot claim to describe the entire policy process, but bring to surface some key issues in order to outline both governance foci and technicalities of governing the phase-out. We looked into how governance makers were actually structuring the ILB phase-out as a governance task. The specific framings we found were grouped into the (a) spectrum of governance dimensions, (b) the more detailed problem-types raised, and (c) the array of discontinuation issues addressed in policy discourse dedicated to negotiating, drafting and implementing the phase-out measures. A set of frames apparent in the discontinuation discourses in the EU and the Netherlands has been reconstructed, which entails the five governance dimensions ‘policy instruments’, ‘implementation’, ‘strictness’, ‘monitoring’, and ‘policy level’. Technical details of both the socio-technical products to be banned and the replacing products have been the subject of meticulous negotiations in order to be able to implement the big picture, the lightbulb ban, appropriately and appropriately for both industry and environmental associations. The design of discontinuation governance at national and EU level are closely intertwined, but not identical in all aspects. The complexity of the governance task is therefore high. Discontinuation has to cope with some resistance to dedicated, forced change that takes place in a technically as well as socially highly complex context. Governing the phase-out of a technical device, a production infrastructure, and industry support policy once supposed to support the EU and Dutch ILB industry was a major techno-political challenge, where policymakers needed to grasp key technical and technological problems. These were related to ILBs as objects, to subjects such as engineers and scientists, lobbyists and disinterested experts, to civil society organisations and mass media, along with all sorts of political and administrative issues and discourses. The challenges are threefold: first, translating for each other what cannot be known from one’s own background, second, shutting down governance which so far fostered lighting industry and, third, helping to change parts of this industry from an old, incumbent one to a new, emerging socio-technical regime with a regime providing a political and regulatory framework for it.

中文翻译：

---

白炽灯泡的逐步淘汰：探索构架中止社会技术制度的治理模式

本文以欧盟和荷兰逐步淘汰白炽灯泡为例，作为实施欧盟停产政策的一个具体案例，旨在更好地理解社会技术制度的弃权治理。特别是，在本文中，我们着重于通过专门的治理主动地和有意地终止社会技术制度。我们从定性的角度出发逐步淘汰白炽灯泡，并分析了来自欧盟和荷兰的约230份文件。该研究具有探索性，因为我们不能声称描述整个政策过程，而是提出一些关键问题以概述治理重点和治理淘汰的技术性。我们研究了治理制定者实际上是如何将ILB淘汰作为治理任务来构建的。我们发现的特定框架分为（a）治理维度范围，（b）提出的更详细的问题类型，以及（c）专门讨论，起草和实施该阶段的政策讨论中涉及的停产问题出措施。欧盟和荷兰在停业话语中显而易见的一套框架已经重构，其中包含五个治理维度“政策工具”，“实施”，“严格性”，“监控”和“政策水平”。为了能够全面了解灯泡禁令，要禁止的社会技术产品和替代产品的技术细节都经过了认真的谈判。适用于行业和环境协会。国家和欧盟层面的停产治理设计紧密相关，但在所有方面都不完全相同。因此，治理任务的复杂性很高。停产必须应对在技术以及社会高度复杂的环境中发生的对专用的强制性更改的抵制。曾经旨在支持欧盟和荷兰ILB行业的技术设备，生产基础设施和行业支持政策的淘汰管理是一项重大的技术政治挑战，决策者需要掌握关键的技术问题。这些与ILB对象有关，涉及工程师和科学家，游说者和无私的专家等主体，民间社会组织和大众媒体，以及各种政治和行政问题与言论。挑战包括三方面：第一，相互翻译自己背景无法理解的内容；第二，关闭迄今为止促进了照明行业发展的治理；第三，帮助将该行业的一部分从一个老的，现有的行业转变为一个行业。新的，新兴的社会技术制度，其制度为其提供了政治和监管框架。