IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v159y2019icp189-197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Hijacking of the Bioeconomy

Author

Listed:
  • Vivien, F.-D.
  • Nieddu, M.
  • Befort, N.
  • Debref, R.
  • Giampietro, M.

Abstract

Georgescu-Roegen used the term bioeconomy to refer to a radical ecological perspective on economics he developed in the 1970s and 1980s. In recent years, it has also become a buzzword used by public institutions to announce and describe a supposed current economic and ecological transition. We see in this use an attempt of semantic hijacking of the original term. To support this claim we analyze three different interpretations of the term bioeconomy, presenting each of them as narratives combining distinct visions of future economic development, technical trajectories and imaginaries associated with a particular relationship to nature. Finally, we discuss these narratives in relation to the endorsement they receive by different stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Vivien, F.-D. & Nieddu, M. & Befort, N. & Debref, R. & Giampietro, M., 2019. "The Hijacking of the Bioeconomy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 189-197.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:159:y:2019:i:c:p:189-197
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918308115
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baka, Jennifer & Bailis, Robert, 2014. "Wasteland energy-scapes: A comparative energy flow analysis of India's biofuel and biomass economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 8-17.
    2. Levallois, Clément, 2010. "Can de-growth be considered a policy option? A historical note on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and the Club of Rome," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2271-2278, September.
    3. Bais, Anna Liza S. & Lauk, Christian & Kastner, Thomas & Erb, Karlheinz, 2015. "Global patterns and trends of wood harvest and use between 1990 and 2010," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 326-337.
    4. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2005. "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University-Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?," Springer Books, in: Albert N. Link & F. M. Scherer (ed.), Essays in Honor of Edwin Mansfield, pages 233-245, Springer.
    5. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 9, pages 178-203, Palgrave Macmillan.
    6. Horst Hanusch & Andreas Pyka (ed.), 2007. "Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2973.
    7. Louise Staffas & Mathias Gustavsson & Kes McCormick, 2013. "Strategies and Policies for the Bioeconomy and Bio-Based Economy: An Analysis of Official National Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Arne Martin Fevolden & Lars Coenen & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2017. "The Role of Trials and Demonstration Projects in the Development of a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Espinoza Pérez, Andrea Teresa & Camargo, Mauricio & Narváez Rincón, Paulo César & Alfaro Marchant, Miguel, 2017. "Key challenges and requirements for sustainable and industrialized biorefinery supply chain design and management: A bibliographic analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 350-359.
    10. Achilladelis, Basil & Schwarzkopf, Albert & Cines, Martin, 1990. "The dynamics of technological innovation: The case of the chemical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 1-34, February.
    11. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    12. de Jesus, Ana & Mendonça, Sandro, 2018. "Lost in Transition? Drivers and Barriers in the Eco-innovation Road to the Circular Economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 75-89.
    13. Martínez-Alier, Joan & Pascual, Unai & Vivien, Franck-Dominique & Zaccai, Edwin, 2010. "Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1741-1747, July.
    14. Martinez-Alier, J., 1997. "Some issues in agrarian and ecological economics, in memory of Georgescu-Roegen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 225-238, September.
    15. M. McKelvey, 2007. "Biotechnology Industries," Chapters, in: Horst Hanusch & Andreas Pyka (ed.), Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Philippe Mustar & Mike Wright & Bart Clarysse, 2008. "University spin-off firms: Lessons from ten years of experience in Europe," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 67-80, March.
    17. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert, 2018. "Social Life Cycle Approach as a Tool for Promoting the Market Uptake of Bio-Based Products from a Consumer Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, March.
    18. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2005. "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University--Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 115-127, January.
    19. Clément Levallois, 2010. "Can de-growth be considered a policy option? : A historical note on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and the Club of Rome," Post-Print hal-02313162, HAL.
    20. Romuald Dupuy & Philippe Roman & Benoît Mougenot, 2015. "Analyzing Socio-Environmental Conflicts with a Commonsian Transactional Framework: Application to a Mining Conflict in Peru," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(4), pages 895-921, October.
    21. Mark R. Finlay, 2003. "Old Efforts at New Uses: A Brief History of Chemurgy and the American Search for Biobased Materials," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 7(3‐4), pages 33-46, July.
    22. Anja Hansen & Jörn Budde & Yusuf Nadi Karatay & Annette Prochnow, 2016. "CUDe —Carbon Utilization Degree as an Indicator for Sustainable Biomass Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, October.
    23. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, 1986. "The Entropy Law and the Economic Process in Retrospect," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 3-25, Jan-Mar.
    24. Hellsmark, Hans & Frishammar, Johan & Söderholm, Patrik & Ylinenpää, Håkan, 2016. "The role of pilot and demonstration plants in technology development and innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1743-1761.
    25. Mario Giampietro & Jesus Ramos-Martin, 2005. "Multi-scale integrated analysis of sustainability: a methodological tool to improve the quality of narratives," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(3/4), pages 119-141.
    26. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    27. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62, pages 124-124.
    28. Asada, Raphael & Stern, Tobias, 2018. "Competitive Bioeconomy? Comparing Bio-based and Non-bio-based Primary Sectors of the World," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 120-128.
    29. Baka, Jennifer & Bailis, Robert, 2014. "Wasteland energy-scapes: a comparative energy flow analysis of India's biofuel and biomass economies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 59896, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    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. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    2. Giampietro, Mario, 2019. "On the Circular Bioeconomy and Decoupling: Implications for Sustainable Growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 143-156.
    3. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Katerina Melfou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2021. "The Knowledge Based Agricultural Bioeconomy: A Bibliometric Network Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Yuliia Maksymiv & Valentyna Yakubiv & Nadia Pylypiv & Iryna Hryhoruk & Iryna Piatnychuk & Nazariy Popadynets, 2021. "Strategic Challenges for Sustainable Governance of the Bioeconomy: Preventing Conflict between SDGs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-12, July.
    5. Nikola Sagapová, 2022. "From environmental thinking in economics to bioplastics: promising material for a sustainable (bio)economy," Economics Working Papers 2022-01, University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, Faculty of Economics.
    6. Benoit Mougenot & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin, 2022. "Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1031-1047, January.
    7. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    8. 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).
    9. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    10. Hyejin Jung & Byung-Keun Kim, 2018. "Determinant factors of university spin-off: the case of Korea," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 1631-1646, December.
    11. Quentin Couix, 2018. "The role of natural resources in production: Georgescu-Roegen/ Daly versus Solow/ Stiglitz," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01702401, HAL.
    12. Lovrić, Nataša & Lovrić, Marko & Mavsar, Robert, 2020. "Factors behind development of innovations in European forest-based bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    13. Sophia Dieken & Sandra Venghaus, 2020. "Potential Pathways to the German Bioeconomy: A Media Discourse Analysis of Public Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    14. D'Amato, D. & Korhonen, J., 2021. "Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    15. Juha Peltomaa, 2018. "Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    16. Durwin H.J. Lynch & Pim Klaassen & Lan van Wassenaer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    17. Quentin Couix, 2019. "Natural resources in the theory of production: the Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz controversy," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 1341-1378, November.
    18. Lillian Hansen & Hilde Bjørkhaug, 2017. "Visions and Expectations for the Norwegian Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-17, February.
    19. Einar Rasmussen & Paul Benneworth & Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2015. "How academic entrepreneurship meets the university," CHEPS Working Papers 201511, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    20. Tobias Stern & Ursula Ploll & Raphael Spies & Peter Schwarzbauer & Franziska Hesser & Lea Ranacher, 2018. "Understanding Perceptions of the Bioeconomy in Austria—An Explorative Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:159:y:2019:i:c:p:189-197. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.