IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v154y2023ics138993412300134x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fixing the meaning of floating signifier: Discourses and network analysis in the bioeconomy policy processes in Argentina and Uruguay

Author

Listed:
  • Mijailoff, Julián Daniel
  • Burns, Sarah Lilian

Abstract

The concept of bioeconomy has spread globally as a floating signifier leading to multiple policies and strategies. As an ambiguous concept, bioeconomy policy agendas at national levels draw on a variety of discourses and visions later reshaped by the particular political and social contexts of each country or region. From the broad boundaries of the overarching bioeconomy meta-discourse, local dominant discourses emerge, created and transformed by international and national social actors in the frame of power relations displaying discursive struggles. Analyzing this body of social dimensions, particularly from less studied Global South countries, can contribute to a critical comprehension of ongoing bioeconomy policy processes and the relationship between international regimes and domestic policies. In recent years, efforts to develop bioeconomy and forest-based bioeconomy strategies and related policy-making were observed in Argentina and Uruguay, two neighbouring countries with analogous forest sector development. Against this background, our study aims to explore these ongoing forest-based bioeconomy policy processes. In order to do so, discourse analysis tools were used to identify current dominant visions regarding bioeconomy. Additionally, the main social agents dealing with and promoting forest-based bioeconomy as well as discourse coalitions were identified with social network analysis techniques. Our findings revealed generally scarce activity of bioeconomy policy debate in media, conducted by a narrow number of legitimatized actors, namely the private sector and interest groups in Argentina and government agencies and TNCs in Uruguay. Local promoters and dominant visions mirror pre-existing narratives and experiences excluding alternative visions. Uruguay's forest-based bioeconomy aims to mirror European experiences, while the Argentinian is embedded in the national agricultural bioeconomy discourse. As bioeconomy operates as a floating signifier, political demands are articulated to a particular meaningful configuration partially fixing bioeconomy's meaning. In this process, central actors exert structural power, indicated by their discourse network centrality as a parameter of their social capital, but also hegemonize bioeconomy excluding alternative actors and their visions.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:154:y:2023:i:c:s138993412300134x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993412300134X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103039?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. Adam C. Howe & Mark C. J. Stoddart & David B. Tindall, 2020. "Media Coverage and Perceived Policy Influence of Environmental Actors: Good Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 298-310.
    2. 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.
    3. Maria Backhouse & Malte Lühmann & Anne Tittor, 2022. "Global Inequalities in the Bioeconomy: Thinking Continuity and Change in View of the Global Soy Complex," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    4. Giurca, Alexandru, 2020. "Unpacking the network discourse: Actors and storylines in Germany's wood-based bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    5. Philip Leifeld, 2020. "Policy Debates and Discourse Network Analysis: A Research Agenda," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 180-183.
    6. 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.
    7. Jaana Korhonen & Alexandru Giurca & Maria Brockhaus & Anne Toppinen, 2018. "Actors and Politics in Finland’s Forest-Based Bioeconomy Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    8. Daniel Kefeli & Karen M. Siegel & Lucía Pittaluga & Thomas Dietz, 2023. "Environmental policy integration in a newly established natural resource-based sector: the role of advocacy coalitions and contrasting conceptions of sustainability," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 69-93, March.
    9. Stefan Wallaschek & Christopher Starke & Carlotta Brüning, 2020. "Solidarity in the Public Sphere: A Discourse Network Analysis of German Newspapers (2008–2017)," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 257-271.
    10. Carmen Priefer & Rolf Meyer, 2019. "One Concept, Many Opinions: How Scientists in Germany Think About the Concept of Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, August.
    11. 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.
    12. Anna P. Durnová & Christopher M. Weible, 2020. "Tempest in a teapot? Toward new collaborations between mainstream policy process studies and interpretive policy studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 571-588, September.
    13. Simon Schaub & Florence Metz, 2020. "Comparing Discourse and Policy Network Approaches: Evidence from Water Policy on Micropollutants," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 184-199.
    14. Singer, Benjamin & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Towards a donut regime? Domestic actors, climatization, and the hollowing-out of the international forests regime in the Anthropocene," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 69-79.
    15. Bastos Lima, Mairon G., 2022. "Just transition towards a bioeconomy: Four dimensions in Brazil, India and Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    16. Lijphart, Arend, 1971. "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 682-693, September.
    17. Sarah Cook & Kiah Smith, 2012. "Introduction: Green Economy and Sustainable Development: Bringing back the ‘social’," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 55(1), pages 5-9, March.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Puttkammer, Judith & Grethe, Harald, 2015. "The Public Debate on Biofuels in Germany: Who Drives the Discourse?," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(04), December.
    21. 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).
    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. Tahvanainen, Veera & Laakkonen, Anu & Pesälä, Ossi & Pittaluga, Lucía & Hujala, Teppo & Pykäläinen, Jouni, 2024. "Pulp addiction? Perspectives of local regime actors on the development of the growing pulp industry in Uruguay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    2. de Queiroz-Stein, Guilherme & Martinelli, Fernanda S. & Dietz, Thomas & Siegel, Karen M., 2024. "Disputing the bioeconomy-biodiversity nexus in Brazil: Coalitions, discourses and policies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    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. 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).
    2. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    3. 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.
    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. Hetemäki, L. & D'Amato, D. & Giurca, A. & Hurmekoski, E., 2024. "Synergies and trade-offs in the European forest bioeconomy research: State of the art and the way forward," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    6. P. J. Stephenson & Anca Damerell, 2022. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy Approaches Need to Enhance the Focus on Biodiversity to Achieve Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    7. 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).
    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. 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).
    10. Sebastian Hinderer & Andreas Kuckertz, 2022. "The bioeconomy transformation as an external enabler of sustainable entrepreneurship," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 2947-2963, November.
    11. Ollinaho, Ossi I. & Kröger, Markus, 2023. "Separating the two faces of “bioeconomy”: Plantation economy and sociobiodiverse economy in Brazil," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    12. 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).
    13. de Queiroz-Stein, Guilherme & Martinelli, Fernanda S. & Dietz, Thomas & Siegel, Karen M., 2024. "Disputing the bioeconomy-biodiversity nexus in Brazil: Coalitions, discourses and policies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    14. Maria Sylvia Macchione Saes & Beatriz Macchione Saes & Elis Regina Monte Feitosa & Peter Poschen & Adalberto Luis Val & Jacques Marcovitch, 2023. "When Do Supply Chains Strengthen Biological and Cultural Diversity? Methods and Indicators for the Socio-Biodiversity Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Tina Highfill & Matthew Chambers, 2023. "Developing a National Measure of the Economic Contributions of the Bioeconomy," BEA Working Papers 0206, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Giampietro, Mario, 2019. "On the Circular Bioeconomy and Decoupling: Implications for Sustainable Growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 143-156.
    20. Jürges, Nataly, 2016. "Wahrnehmungen und Funktionen in der Transformation zur Bioökonomie: Eine Akteursanalyse im Politikfeld "Boden"," UFZ Discussion Papers 6/2016, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).

    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:154:y:2023:i:c:s138993412300134x. 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.