IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v110y2020ics1389934118301047.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unpacking the network discourse: Actors and storylines in Germany's wood-based bioeconomy

Author

Listed:
  • Giurca, Alexandru

Abstract

This study starts from the assumption that, besides its more obvious techno-scientific and economic claims, the bioeconomy is primarily a political project where actors with different interests and strategies pursue different agendas. It thus proposes a reconceptualization of the wood-based bioeconomy network in Germany (WBN). For this purpose, a mixed methodological-approach that combines quantitative methods of network mapping with qualitative interpretations for unpacking the network discourse is suggested. Through a series of semi-structured interviews with key actors in the network, this study attempts to understand emerging discourses within the WBN by putting greater emphasis on central actors and the storylines they promote. Empirically, this study seeks to: (i) explore what kind of strategies and storylines the central actors in the WBN promote; and (ii) identify the potential for consensus or conflict between the different storylines promoted by participating actors. Theoretically, it draws on the broader socio-technical transitions literature and reflects upon the emerging network discourse. Results show that the bioeconomy discourse is broad enough for multiple stakeholders to identify with. Yet this openness of the discourse and diversity of organizational strategies and interests highlights a series of internal conflicting and consenting storylines. It is argued that such divergent views lead to a lack of clear objective stetting which may ultimately affect the success of the bioeconomy project.

Suggested Citation

  • Giurca, Alexandru, 2020. "Unpacking the network discourse: Actors and storylines in Germany's wood-based bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:110:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118301047
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.05.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118301047
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.05.009?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. Hess, David J., 2014. "Sustainability transitions: A political coalition perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 278-283.
    2. Nina Hagemann & Erik Gawel & Alexandra Purkus & Nadine Pannicke & Jennifer Hauck, 2016. "Possible Futures towards a Wood-Based Bioeconomy: A Scenario Analysis for Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    3. Geels, Frank W., 2010. "Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 495-510, May.
    4. Pannicke, Nadine & Gawe, Erik & Hagemann, Nina & Purkus, Alexandra & Strunz, Sebastian, 2015. "The Political Economy of Fostering a Wood-based Bioeconomy in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(04), December.
    5. David Marsh & Martin Smith, 2000. "Understanding Policy Networks: towards a Dialectical Approach," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(1), pages 4-21, March.
    6. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fuhrmann, Marilene & Dißauer, Christa & Strasser, Christoph & Schmid, Erwin, 2021. "Analysing price cointegration of sawmill by-products in the forest-based sector in Austria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Halonen, Maija & Näyhä, Annukka & Kuhmonen, Irene, 2022. "Regional sustainability transition through forest-based bioeconomy? Development actors' perspectives on related policies, power, and justice," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    3. Caetano C R & Oscar Yandy & Cristian Matti, 2023. "Exploring indicators for monitoring sociotechnical system transitions through portfolio networks," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 719-741.
    4. Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & Kröger, Markus & Dressler, Wolfram, 2022. "From pro-growth and planetary limits to degrowth and decoloniality: An emerging bioeconomy policy and research agenda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Gebara, Maria Fernanda & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & Schmidlehner, Michael Franz, 2023. "Indigenous Knowledge in the Amazon's Bioeconomy: Unveiling Bioepistemicide through the case of Kambo Medicine," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    7. Mijailoff, Julián Daniel & Burns, Sarah Lilian, 2023. "Fixing the meaning of floating signifier: Discourses and network analysis in the bioeconomy policy processes in Argentina and Uruguay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.

    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. Nhat Strøm-Andersen, 2019. "Incumbents in the Transition Towards the Bioeconomy: The Role of Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Erik Gawel & Nadine Pannicke & Nina Hagemann, 2019. "A Path Transition Towards a Bioeconomy—The Crucial Role of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Joana Ramanauskaitė, 2021. "The Role of Incumbent Actors in Sustainability Transitions: A Case of LITHUANIA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Weigelt, Carmen & Lu, Shaohua & Verhaal, J. Cameron, 2021. "Blinded by the sun: The role of prosumers as niche actors in incumbent firms’ adoption of solar power during sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    6. Alexandra Gottinger & Luana Ladu & Rainer Quitzow, 2020. "Studying the Transition towards a Circular Bioeconomy—A Systematic Literature Review on Transition Studies and Existing Barriers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-25, October.
    7. Pel, Bonno & Raven, Rob & van Est, Rinie, 2020. "Transitions governance with a sense of direction: synchronization challenges in the case of the dutch ‘Driverless Car’ transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    8. Manuel Hafner & Lukas Fehr & Jan Springorum & Artur Petkau & Reinhard Johler, 2020. "Perceptions of Bioeconomy and the Desire for Governmental Action: Regional Actors’ Connotations of Wood-Based Bioeconomy in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    9. Lowes, Richard & Woodman, Bridget & Fitch-Roy, Oscar, 2019. "Policy change, power and the development of Great Britain's Renewable Heat Incentive," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 410-421.
    10. Manning, Stephan & Reinecke, Juliane, 2016. "A modular governance architecture in-the-making: How transnational standard-setters govern sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 618-633.
    11. Alexandru Giurca & Liviu Nichiforel & Petru Tudor Stăncioiu & Marian Drăgoi & Daniel-Paul Dima, 2022. "Unlocking Romania’s Forest-Based Bioeconomy Potential: Knowledge-Action-Gaps and the Way Forward," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, November.
    12. Ulrich J. Frey & Sandra Wassermann & Marc Deissenroth-Uhrig, 2020. "Storage Technologies for the Electricity Transition: An Analysis of Actors, Actor Perspectives and Transition Pathways in Germany," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Daniel Hausknost & Ernst Schriefl & Christian Lauk & Gerald Kalt, 2017. "A Transition to Which Bioeconomy? An Exploration of Diverging Techno-Political Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-22, April.
    14. Kvellheim, Ann Kristin, 2017. "The power of buildings in climate change mitigation: The case of Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 653-661.
    15. Håkon Endresen Normann, 2016. "Policy networks in energy transitions: The cases of carbon capture and storage and offshore wind in Norway," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20161026, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    16. Sotiropoulou, Irene & Deutz, Pauline, 2021. "Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(4), December.
    17. Leire Barañano & Olatz Unamunzaga & Naroa Garbisu & Siebe Briers & Timokleia Orfanidou & Blasius Schmid & Inazio Martínez de Arano & Andrés Araujo & Carlos Garbisu, 2022. "Assessment of the Development of Forest-Based Bioeconomy in European Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-19, April.
    18. Di Letizia, Gerardo & De Lucia, Caterina & Pazienza, Pasquale & Cappelletti, Giulio Mario, 2023. "Forest bioeconomy at regional scale: A systematic literature review and future policy perspectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    19. Hurmekoski, Elias & Lovrić, Marko & Lovrić, Nataša & Hetemäki, Lauri & Winkel, Georg, 2019. "Frontiers of the forest-based bioeconomy – A European Delphi study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 86-99.
    20. Thorsten Schilling & Romano Wyss & Claudia R. Binder, 2018. "The Resilience of Sustainability Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-23, December.

    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:forpol:v:110:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118301047. 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/forpol .

    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.