Pros and cons of the bioeconomy: a critical appraisal of public claims through Critical Discourse Analysis
In this paper Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is used to uncover hidden political agenda and value systems concealed behind the alleged “value-free” discourse of EU and US governments on the bioeconomy. The main assumption of the paper is that the claimed social benefits of the bioeconomy, far from relying on sound scientific arguments (as stated in government documents), are instead false promises made in the interest of profits of powerful transnational companies (TNCs). The analysis is carried out on four publications which represent the voices of proponents (the EU and US governments) and the opponents (the two civil society organizations, ETC group and Global Forest Coalition) of the bioeconomy. The results of text analysis indicate that all the four texts exhibit some ideological biases. Nevertheless, pro bioeconomy documents prove to be far more ideologized than those against. The general conclusion of the research is that the debate on the risks and benefits of the bioeconomy needs to be cleansed of the ideological prejudices that characterize both its supporters and opponents and instead enriched with transparency and democratic political confrontation.
|Date of creation:||Jun 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.aieaa.org/|
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aiea13:149895. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.