IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i24p8405-d701419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Industrial Revival in Untapping the Bioeconomy’s Potential in Central and Eastern Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Marko Lovec

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Luka Juvančič

    (Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Abstract

The bioeconomy occupies the centre of the Green Deal, the EU’s plan to support transformative growth following the COVID-19 episode. However, parts of the EU, such as countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) continue to lag behind in harnessing the potential held by the bioeconomy. This article argues that in CEE countries, where the primary and conventional bioeconomy sectors play a more important role, ‘early’ transition pathways such as improvements in productivity and practice- as well as commercialisation-oriented innovation (the do–use–interact model: DUI) are just as important as approaches based on (generally publicly supported) R&D, innovation adoption, and technology transfer (science–technology–innovation model: STI), typically associated with high-value bioindustrial applications. The argument is tested by conducting a survey of 352 experts in the region that gives an insight into the CEE macro-region’s assets with respect to deploying the bioeconomy’s potential and assessing the transition pathways relevant to the better performance of bioeconomy (primary, manufacturing, and other related) sectors. The results show the particular relevance of consolidating the primary and traditional sectors to support improvements in productivity based on the vertical and horizontal interaction typically associated with DUI, while the relevance of STI is mostly linked to advanced sectors, which are narrowly distributed across the region. The findings are relevant to policy given that the EU’s bioeconomy policy has thus far chiefly focused on STI support that better corresponds to the needs of countries at more advanced stages of developing the bioeconomy, but is less appropriate for the specific context and needs of CEE.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:24:p:8405-:d:701419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/24/8405/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/24/8405/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jensen, Morten Berg & Johnson, Bjorn & Lorenz, Edward & Lundvall, Bengt Ake, 2007. "Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 680-693, June.
    2. László Andor, 2019. "Fifteen Years of Convergence: East-West Imbalance and What the EU Should Do About it," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 54(1), pages 18-23, January.
    3. Elkhan Richard Sadik-Zada & Wilhelm Loewenstein & Yadulla Hasanli, 2021. "Production linkages and dynamic fiscal employment effects of the extractive industries: input-output and nonlinear ARDL analyses of Azerbaijani economy," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 34(1), pages 3-18, April.
    4. Ida Grundel & Margareta Dahlström, 2016. "A Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Approach to Regional Innovation Systems in the Transformation to a Forestry-Based Bioeconomy," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 7(4), pages 963-983, December.
    5. Fitjar, Rune Dahl & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, 2013. "Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 128-138.
    6. Floor Brouwer & Francesco Mantino & Nico Polman & Chris Short & Simone Sterly & Ilona Rac, 2018. "Private Sector Actions to Valorise Public Benefits from Agriculture and Forestry," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 17(3), pages 16-22, December.
    7. Niftiyev, Ibrahim & Huseynova, Rena, 2021. "How has the Self-Perceived Health Shaped the COVID-19 Causalities in the Visegrad Countries?," EconStor Conference Papers 234511, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. Parrilli, Mario Davide & Alcalde Heras, Henar, 2016. "STI and DUI innovation modes: Scientific-technological and context-specific nuances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 747-756.
    9. 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.
    10. Tévécia Ronzon & Robert M’Barek, 2018. "Socioeconomic Indicators to Monitor the EU’s Bioeconomy in Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    11. Ibrahim Niftiyev, 2021. "Dutch Disease Effects in the Azerbaijan Economy: Results of Multivariate Linear Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Estimations," HSE Economic Journal, National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 25(2), pages 309-346.
    12. Elkhan Richard Sadik-Zada, 2020. "Distributional Bargaining and the Speed of Structural Change in the Petroleum Exporting Labor Surplus Economies," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 32(1), pages 51-98, January.
    13. Viaggi, Davide, 2018. "Bioeconomy and the Common Agricultural Policy: will a strategy in search of policies meet a policy in search of strategies?," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 7(2), August.
    14. Thomas Dietz & Jan Börner & Jan Janosch Förster & Joachim Von Braun, 2018. "Governance of the Bioeconomy: A Global Comparative Study of National Bioeconomy Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    15. Heimann, Tobias, 2019. "Bioeconomy and SDGs: Does the Bioeconomy Support the Achievement of the SDGs?," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 225998, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    16. Rick Bosman & Jan Rotmans, 2016. "Transition Governance towards a Bioeconomy: A Comparison of Finland and The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-20, October.
    17. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sergey Nikolaevich Silvestrov & Sergey Alekseevich Pobyvaev & Stanislav Borisovich Reshetnikov & Dmitrii Vladimirovich Firsov, 2022. "Management of the Russian Interregional Investment Distribution Using the Autonomous Expenditure Multiplier Model," Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Stelios Rozakis & Luka Juvančič & Barna Kovacs, 2022. "Bioeconomy for Resilient Post-COVID Economies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-5, April.

    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. Calvo, Nuria & Fernández-López, Sara & Rodríguez-Gulías, María Jesús & Rodeiro-Pazos, David, 2022. "The effect of population size and technological collaboration on firms' innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. Mathew, Nanditha & Paily, George, 2020. "STI-DUI innovation modes and firm performance in the Indian capital goods industry: Do small firms differ from large ones?," MERIT Working Papers 2020-008, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    3. Hervás-Oliver, José-Luis & Parrilli, Mario Davide & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Sempere-Ripoll, Francisca, 2021. "The drivers of SME innovation in the regions of the EU," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    4. Doloreux, David & Shearmur, Richard, 2023. "Does location matter? STI and DUI innovation modes in different geographic settings," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. David Doloreux & Richard Shearmur & Igone Porto‐Gomez & Jon Mikel Zabala‐Iturriagagoitia, 2020. "DUI and STI innovation modes in the Canadian wine industry: The geography of interaction modes," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 890-909, September.
    6. 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).
    7. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Haus-Reve, Silje & Fitjar, Rune, 2019. "Does combining different types of collaboration always benefit firms? Collaboration, complementarity and product innovation in," CEPR Discussion Papers 13622, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Trott, Paul & Simms, Chris, 2017. "An examination of product innovation in low- and medium-technology industries: Cases from the UK packaged food sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 605-623.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Sérgio Nunes & Raul Lopes & Nerys Fuller-Love, 2019. "Networking, Innovation, and Firms’ Performance: Portugal as Illustration," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(3), pages 899-920, September.
    12. Tatjana Bennat, 2022. "High Innovativeness of SMEs and the Configuration of Learning-by-Doing, Learning-by-Using, Learning-by-Interacting, and Learning-by-Science: a Regional Comparison Applying Fuzzy Qualitative Comparativ," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(2), pages 1666-1691, June.
    13. Liang, Liang & Alam, Ashraful & Sorwar, Ghulam & Yazdifar, Hassan & Eskandari, Rasol, 2021. "The combined network effect of sparse and interlocked connections in SMEs’ innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    14. Bischoff, Thore Sören & Hipp, Ann & Runst, Petrik, 2022. "Firm innovation and generalized trust as a regional resource," ifh Working Papers 32/2022, Volkswirtschaftliches Institut für Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen (ifh).
    15. Marzucchi, Alberto & Montresor, Sandro, 2017. "Forms of knowledge and eco-innovation modes: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 208-221.
    16. Haus-Reve, Silje & Fitjar, Rune Dahl & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, 2019. "Does combining different types of collaboration always benefit firms? Collaboration, complementarity and product innovation in Norway," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1476-1486.
    17. Thomä, Jörg, 2017. "DUI mode learning and barriers to innovation—A case from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1327-1339.
    18. Parrilli, M. Davide & Balavac-Orlić, Merima & Radicic, Dragana, 2023. "Environmental innovation across SMEs in Europe," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    19. Brea, Edgar & Ford, Jerad A., 2023. "No silver bullet: Cognitive technology does not lead to novelty in all firms," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    20. Thomä, Jörg & Zimmermann, Volker, 2019. "Non-R&D, interactive learning and economic performance: Revisiting innovation in small and medium enterprises," ifh Working Papers 17/2019, Volkswirtschaftliches Institut für Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen (ifh).

    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:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:24:p:8405-:d:701419. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.