IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cbu/jrnlec/y2021v5p228-233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Main Differences Between The Updated Bioeconomy Strategy And The European Green Deal

Author

Listed:
  • IURES MUGUR VICTOR CONSTANTIN

    (DOCTORAL SCHOOL OF ECONOMIC SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CRAIOVA)

Abstract

Since the industrial revolution, the global economy has consistently relied on fossil fuel reserves, such as natural gas, oil, or carbon for industrial use. They have been and are used to produce a diverse range of products: fuel, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, synthetic fiber soaps, plastics, etc. All this to meet the demand of a growing population. The concept of bioeconomy is at the center of strategies worldwide. That is true for European Union (EU), which made a priority the development of bioeconomy. The term bioeconomy is still very diverse, but the EU's efforts in this direction to develop sustainable research, innovation and entrepreneurship play a huge role in raising awareness. At the end of 2019, the strategy that was in place, The Updated Bioeconomy Strategy was joined by a new one, European Green Deal. Bioeconomic strategies conceptualize future development as being devoid of alternatives and their objectives as more or less accessible. Nevertheless, the debate of bioeconomic policies has revealed several impediments and uncertainties, diverging interests in the bioeconomy and concepts. This paper aims to study the main similarities and differences between the strategies that EU has adopted in the area of bioeconomy, with the Updated Bioeconomy Strategy from 2018 and the European Green Deal from 2020. The methodology of this paper comprises the review of the main similarities and differences of the two strategies, to accomplish the foundation for further research. Thus, we can outline that the bioeconomy is playing a significant contribution in shaping the policy of the EU given the growing number of policies adopted in the past years.

Suggested Citation

  • Iures Mugur Victor Constantin, 2021. "The Main Differences Between The Updated Bioeconomy Strategy And The European Green Deal," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 5, pages 228-233, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cbu:jrnlec:y:2021:v:5:p:228-233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.utgjiu.ro/revista/ec/pdf/2021-05/26_Iures.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiaoxi Li, 2014. "Scientific development and a new green deal," China Finance and Economic Review, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Lucchese, Matteo & Pianta, Mario, 2020. "Europe’s alternative: a Green Industrial Policy for sustainability and convergence," MPRA Paper 98705, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Tévécia Ronzon & Stephan Piotrowski & Saulius Tamosiunas & Lara Dammer & Michael Carus & Robert M’barek, 2020. "Developments of Economic Growth and Employment in Bioeconomy Sectors across the EU," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-13, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Teodor Marian Cojocaru & Mariana Niculescu & Maria Nache Cimpoeru & Oana Alexandra Călin, 2023. "Progress of EU Member States Regarding the Bioeconomy and Biomass Producing and Converting Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Andrzej Czyżewski & Andrzej Grzyb & Anna Matuszczak & Mariola Michałowska, 2021. "Factors for Bioeconomy Development in EU Countries with Different Overall Levels of Economic Development," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Baldoni, Edoardo & Philippidis, George & Spekreijse, Jurjen & Gurría, Patricia & Lammens, Tijs & Parisi, Claudia & Ronzon, Tévécia & Vis, Martijn & M'Barek, Robert, 2021. "Getting your hands dirty: A data digging exercise to unearth the EU's bio-based chemical sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    4. Chakraborty, Saptorshee Kanto & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2021. "Renewable electricity and economic growth relationship in the long run: Panel data econometric evidence from the OECD," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 330-341.
    5. Xinghua Fan & Xuxia Li & Jiuli Yin, 2019. "Impact of environmental tax on green development: A nonlinear dynamical system analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Marko Lovec & Luka Juvančič, 2021. "The Role of Industrial Revival in Untapping the Bioeconomy’s Potential in Central and Eastern Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Matteo Lucchese & Mario Pianta, 2020. "The Coming Coronavirus Crisis: What Can We Learn?," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 55(2), pages 98-104, March.
    8. Fabiana Gatto & Sara Daniotti & Ilaria Re, 2021. "Driving Green Investments by Measuring Innovation Impacts. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Regional Bioeconomy Growth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-27, October.
    9. Idiano D’Adamo & Rocío González-Sánchez & Maria Sonia Medina-Salgado & Davide Settembre-Blundo, 2021. "E-Commerce Calls for Cyber-Security and Sustainability: How European Citizens Look for a Trusted Online Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    10. Andrea Coveri & Claudio Cozza & Leopoldo Nascia & Antonello Zanfei, 2020. "Supply chain contagion and the role of industrial policy," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 47(3), pages 467-482, September.
    11. Rebolledo-Leiva, Ricardo & Moreira, María Teresa & González-García, Sara, 2023. "Progress of social assessment in the framework of bioeconomy under a life cycle perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    12. Jim Philp, 2021. "Biotechnologies to Bridge the Schism in the Bioeconomy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Idiano D’Adamo & Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2022. "Exploring regional transitions to the bioeconomy using a socio-economic indicator: the case of Italy," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(3), pages 989-1021, October.
    14. Fabio G. Santeramo & Monica Delsignore & Enrica Imbert & Mariarosaria Lombardi, 2023. "The Future of the EU Bioenergy Sector: Economic, Environmental, Social, and Legislative Challenges," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 17(1), pages 1-1–52, April.
    15. Piotr Jurga & Efstratios Loizou & Stelios Rozakis, 2021. "Comparing Bioeconomy Potential at National vs. Regional Level Employing Input-Output Modeling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-17, March.
    16. Laura Mariana Cismaș & Emilia Mary Bălan & Cristina Georgiana Zeldea & Marioara Iordan & Cristian Mihai Cismaș, 2023. "Agriculture and the Bioeconomy: A Socioeconomic Analysis of Central and Eastern European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-16, November.
    17. Mousavi-Avval, Seyed Hashem & Sahoo, Kamalakanta & Nepal, Prakash & Runge, Troy & Bergman, Richard, 2023. "Environmental impacts and techno-economic assessments of biobased products: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    18. Delia-Elena Diaconașu & Ionel Bostan & Cristina Căutișanu & Irina Chiriac, 2022. "Insights into the Sustainable Development of the Bioeconomy at the European Level, in the Context of the Desired Clean Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-14, September.
    19. Tévécia Ronzon & Susanne Iost & George Philippidis, 2022. "Has the European Union entered a bioeconomy transition? Combining an output-based approach with a shift-share analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8195-8217, June.
    20. Emilia Mary Balan & Cristina Georgiana Zeldea, 2023. "Bioeconomy in Romania: Investigating Farmers’ Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-29, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cbu:jrnlec:y:2021:v:5:p:228-233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ecobici Nicolae (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fetgjro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.