IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v153y2020ics0040162519307929.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields

Author

Listed:
  • Befort, N.

Abstract

The bioeconomy is steadily becoming more important to regional, national and European public policy. As it encompasses the transformation of agricultural, marine and organic resources into food, feed, fuels, energy and materials, the bioeconomy should become a major new industry replacing oil-based products. However, policymakers take two main approaches to developing the bioeconomy. The first, biotech-oriented approach depicts the bioeconomy as a biotechnology subsector. The second, biomass-oriented approach (i) considers biomass transformation as its starting point, (ii) raises the issue of bioeconomy sustainability, and (iii) considers biotechnology as just one of many transformation technologies. The growing literature on defining the bioeconomy has not yet covered the articulation between biotechnology and bioeconomy. This paper fills this critical gap and provides policy recommendations depending on whether the goal is to develop biotechnology or to contribute to green growth and sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:153:y:2020:i:c:s0040162519307929
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119923
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162519307929
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119923?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. Matteo De Besi & Kes McCormick, 2015. "Towards a Bioeconomy in Europe: National, Regional and Industrial Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Mariana Mazzucato, 2018. "Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(5), pages 803-815.
    3. Smith, Adrian & Raven, Rob, 2012. "What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1025-1036.
    4. Robinson, John Bridger, 1982. "Energy backcasting A proposed method of policy analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 337-344, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Kivimaa, Paula & Boon, Wouter & Hyysalo, Sampsa & Klerkx, Laurens, 2019. "Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 1062-1075.
    7. 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.
    8. Edquist, Charles & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel, 2012. "Public Procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1757-1769.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Cristiano Antonelli, 2006. "The Business Governance of Localized Knowledge: An Information Economics Approach for the Economics of Knowledge," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 227-261.
    13. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Truffer, Bernhard, 2014. "The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 772-791.
    14. Acquier, Aurélien & Daudigeos, Thibault & Pinkse, Jonatan, 2017. "Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 1-10.
    15. Audretsch, David B. & Lehmann, Erik E. & Warning, Susanne, 2005. "University spillovers and new firm location," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1113-1122, September.
    16. Geels, Frank W., 2014. "Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary Triple Embeddedness Framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 261-277.
    17. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    18. Ronzon, Tévécia & Piotrowski, Stephan & M’Barek, Robert & Carus, Michael, 2017. "A systematic approach to understanding and quantifying the EU’s bioeconomy," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 6(1), May.
    19. Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Lopolito, Antonio & Sica, Edgardo, 2019. "Instrument mix for energy transition: A method for policy formulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    20. M. McKelvey, 2007. "Biotechnology Industries," Chapters, in: Horst Hanusch & Andreas Pyka (ed.), Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Sorrell, Steve, 2018. "Explaining sociotechnical transitions: A critical realist perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1267-1282.
    22. Schmid, Otto & Padel, Susanne & Levidow, Les, 2012. "The Bio-Economy Concept and Knowledge Base in a Public Goods and Farmer Perspective," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-18, April.
    23. Genovaite Liobikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Dalia Streimikiene & Xueli Chen, 2019. "Evaluation of bioeconomy in the context of strong sustainability," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 955-964, September.
    24. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    25. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    26. 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.
    27. Borrás, Susana & Edquist, Charles, 2013. "The choice of innovation policy instruments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1513-1522.
    28. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    29. 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.
    30. Eric Neumayer, 2013. "Weak versus Strong Sustainability," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14993.
    31. Andersson, Tord & Gleadle, Pauline & Haslam, Colin & Tsitsianis, Nick, 2010. "Bio-pharma: A financialized business model," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(7), pages 631-641.
    32. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    33. Kean Birch & Les Levidow & Theo Papaioannou, 2010. "Sustainable Capital ? The Neoliberalization of Nature and Knowledge in the European “Knowledge-based Bio-economy”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(9), pages 1-21, September.
    34. Michael M. Hopkins & Philippa A. Crane & Paul Nightingale & Charles Baden-Fuller, 2013. "Buying big into biotech: scale, financing, and the industrial dynamics of UK biotech, 1980--2009," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(4), pages 903-952, August.
    35. Ribeiro, Barbara E. & Quintanilla, Miguel A., 2015. "Transitions in biofuel technologies: An appraisal of the social impacts of cellulosic ethanol using the Delphi method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 53-68.
    36. Benjamin Coriat & Fabienne Orsi & Olivier Weinstein, 2003. "Does Biotech Reflect a New Science-based Innovation Regime?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 231-253.
    37. Markard, Jochen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2008. "Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 596-615, May.
    38. Näyhä, Annukka & Pesonen, Hanna-Leena, 2014. "Strategic change in the forest industry towards the biorefining business," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 259-271.
    39. Horst Hanusch & Andreas Pyka (ed.), 2007. "Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2973.
    40. ., 1998. "Technological Change," Chapters, in: Heinz D. Kurz & Neri Salvadori (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Classical Economics, volume 0, chapter 127, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    41. Kim, Yohan & Lee, Joosung & Ahn, Jaemyung, 2019. "Innovation towards sustainable technologies: A socio-technical perspective on accelerating transition to aviation biofuel," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 317-329.
    42. Hermans, Frans, 2018. "The potential contribution of transition theory to the analysis of bioclusters and their role in the transition to a bioeconomy," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 265-276.
    43. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2001. "Markets for Technology and Their Implications for Corporate Strategy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(2), pages 419-451, June.
    44. 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.
    45. Swinda F. Pfau & Janneke E. Hagens & Ben Dankbaar & Antoine J. M. Smits, 2014. "Visions of Sustainability in Bioeconomy Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, March.
    46. Trumbo, Jennifer L. & Tonn, Bruce E., 2016. "Biofuels: A sustainable choice for the United States' energy future?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 147-161.
    47. Svensson, Oscar & Nikoleris, Alexandra, 2018. "Structure reconsidered: Towards new foundations of explanatory transitions theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 462-473.
    48. Estelle Garnier & Christophe Bliard, 2012. "The emergence of doubly green chemistry, a narrative approach," Post-Print hal-03469292, HAL.
    49. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1997. "Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative Activities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(1), pages 83-117.
    50. 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.
    51. Levidow, Les & Upham, Paul, 2017. "Linking the multi-level perspective with social representations theory: Gasifiers as a niche innovation reinforcing the energy-from-waste (EfW) regime," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-13.
    52. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    53. Pier Paolo Patrucco, 2014. "The Evolution of Knowledge Organization and the Emergence of a Platform for Innovation in the Car Industry," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 243-266, April.
    54. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1990. "Complementarity and External Linkages: The Strategies of the Large Firms in Biotechnology," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 361-379, June.
    55. 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.
    56. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco & Martini, Chiara & Pennacchio, Luca, 2015. "Demand-pull and technology-push public support for eco-innovation: The case of the biofuels sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 577-595.
    57. Giampietro, Mario, 2019. "On the Circular Bioeconomy and Decoupling: Implications for Sustainable Growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 143-156.
    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Wilde, Kerstin & Hermans, Frans, 2021. "Innovation in the bioeconomy: Perspectives of entrepreneurs on relevant framework conditions," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 314.
    4. Jochen Dürr & Marcelo Sili, 2022. "New or Traditional Approaches in Argentina’s Bioeconomy? Biomass and Biotechnology Use, Local Embeddedness, and Sustainability Outcomes of Bioeconomic Ventures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-28, November.
    5. Befort, N., 2021. "The promises of drop-in vs. functional innovations: The case of bioplastics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    6. D'Amato, D. & Korhonen-Kurki, K. & Lyytikainen, V. & Matthies, B.D. & Horcea-Milcu, A-I., 2022. "Circular bioeconomy: Actors and dynamics of knowledge co-production in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    7. Giurca, Alexandru & Befort, Nicolas, 2023. "Deconstructing substitution narratives: The case of bioeconomy innovations from the forest-based sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    8. David Ayrapetyan & Frans Hermans, 2020. "Introducing a Multiscalar Framework for Biocluster Research: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-23, May.
    9. Alberto Bezama & Jakob Hildebrandt & Daniela Thrän, 2021. "Integrating Regionalized Socioeconomic Considerations onto Life Cycle Assessment for Evaluating Bioeconomy Value Chains: A Case Study on Hybrid Wood–Concrete Ceiling Elements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Conteratto, Caroline & Artuzo, Felipe Dalzotto & Benedetti Santos, Omar Inácio & Talamini, Edson, 2021. "Biorefinery: A comprehensive concept for the sociotechnical transition toward bioeconomy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    11. Ayrapetyan, David, 2023. "Technological innovations and sustainability transitions in the bioeconomy: A multiscalar approach toward the development of bioclusters," EconStor Theses, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 278703, October.

    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. 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.
    2. Heiberg, Jonas & Truffer, Bernhard & Binz, Christian, 2022. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    3. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical network analysis – a methodological framework and a case study from the water sector," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2035, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2020.
    4. 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.
    5. Raven, Rob & Walrave, Bob, 2020. "Overcoming transformational failures through policy mixes in the dynamics of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    6. Nikas, A. & Koasidis, K. & Köberle, A.C. & Kourtesi, G. & Doukas, H., 2022. "A comparative study of biodiesel in Brazil and Argentina: An integrated systems of innovation perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Rogge, Karoline S. & Pfluger, Benjamin & Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical scenarios: The case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system (2010–2050)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    10. Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Lopolito, Antonio & Sica, Edgardo, 2019. "Instrument mix for energy transition: A method for policy formulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    11. Haley, Brendan, 2018. "Integrating structural tensions into technological innovation systems analysis: Application to the case of transmission interconnections and renewable electricity in Nova Scotia, Canada," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1147-1160.
    12. Turnheim, Bruno & Geels, Frank W., 2019. "Incumbent actors, guided search paths, and landmark projects in infra-system transitions: Re-thinking Strategic Niche Management with a case study of French tramway diffusion (1971–2016)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1412-1428.
    13. Cheng Wang & Tao Lv & Rongjiang Cai & Jianfeng Xu & Liya Wang, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transition Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    16. 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).
    17. Kejia Yang & Johan Schot & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Shaping the Directionality of Sustainability Transitions: The Diverging Development Patterns of Solar PV in Two Chinese Provinces," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    18. Kean Birch, 2016. "Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Binz, Christian, 2018. "Global socio-technical regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 735-749.
    20. Leonard Prochaska & Daniel Schiller, 2021. "An evolutionary perspective on the emergence and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policy: the example of the change of the leitmotif from biotechnology to bioeconomy," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 141-249, April.

    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:tefoso:v:153:y:2020:i:c:s0040162519307929. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.