The Hijacking of the Bioeconomy

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu MdM-2015-0552Georgescu-Roegen used the term bioeconomy to refer to a radical ecological perspective on economics he developed in the 1970s and 1980s. In recent years, it has also become a buzzword used by public institutions to announce and describe a supposed current economic and ecological transition. We see in this use an attempt of semantic hijacking of the original term. To support this claim we analyze three different interpretations of the term bioeconomy, presenting each of them as narratives combining distinct visions of future economic development, technical trajectories and imaginaries associated with a particular relationship to nature. Finally, we discuss these narratives in relation to the endorsement they receive by different stakeholders

Toward a mesoeconomic analysis of the emergence of a bioeconomy : collective heritages and actors strategies in the régulation of a doubly green chemistry

Cette thèse analyse, à partir d’une démarche mésoéconomique régulationniste et évolutionniste, l’émergence d’un espace économique. Les acteurs l’ont baptisé « bioéconomie », à partir d’interprétations divergentes du terme. Cet espace se différencie des façons traditionnelles de se représenter la division du travail en secteurs (la chimie, l’agriculture, l’énergie). Les acteurs qui cherchent à constituer cet espace les recomposent dans un champ original et spécifique. Ce champ est fondé sur l’usage de ressources renouvelables végétales, animales et algales. Les acteurs constituant le champ se proposent d’être une « industrie des industries ». Ils fourniraient, non pas des produits finaux, mais des produits intermédiaires, agro-alimentaires ou destinés à la chimie, aux matériaux et à l’énergie. Ce champ ne comprend pas par exemple le photovoltaïque. La bioéconomie recompose les relations entre agriculture et chimie, en (re)faisant de la première un fournisseur de la seconde. Nous mobilisons la notion de régimes de production de connaissances et d’activités économiques pour décrire la diversité des promesses technologiques faites par les acteurs. Nous montrons alors que la bioéconomie ne peut se réduire à la « révolution biotechnologique ». Trois grandes visions de la bioéconomie se confrontent. A un niveau plus fin, on présente trois cas de cette diversité. Les acteurs portent une « économie des promesses » à partir de leurs patrimoines productifs collectifs respectifs qu’ils cherchent à reproduire et projeter dans le futur. Cela donne lieu, de leur part, à un travail de problématisation de l’espace de la bioéconomie, qui détermine leur allocation de ressources.This thesis analyses the emergence of a new economic space from a mesoeconomic regulationist and evolutionist approach. This space has been called "bioeconomy" by the actors after divergent and conflictual interpretations of this concept. This economic space differs from the traditional ways of representing the division of labour into sectors (chemistry, agriculture, energy). The actors involved in seeking to define this space are reconstructing these sectors into an original and specific field, which is built on the use of biobased plant, animal and algal renewable resources. These actors consider themselves to be becoming the "industry of industries". Thus, instead of providing end products, they produce intermediates for agro- or chemical industries, materials or energy. The field does not cover photovoltaic electricity. Therefore, bioeconomy is a recomposition of the relationships between agriculture and chemistry in which the former becomes the supplier for the latter. We use the concept of the regimes of production of knowledge and of economic activity to describe the diversity of the technological promises made by the actors involved. We show, therefore, that bioeconomy cannot be reduced to the biotechnological revolution. Three broad views of bioeconomy emerge. At a deeper level, we present here three case studies to illustrate this diversity. The actors are weighed down by an "economy of promises" based on their own productive heritages that they are trying to reproduce and project into the future. This leads them to problematize the bioeconomy space in order to determine their resource allocations

Toward a mesoeconomic analysis of the emergence of a bioeconomy : collective heritages and actors strategies in the régulation of a doubly green chemistry

Cette thèse analyse, à partir d’une démarche mésoéconomique régulationniste et évolutionniste, l’émergence d’un espace économique. Les acteurs l’ont baptisé « bioéconomie », à partir d’interprétations divergentes du terme. Cet espace se différencie des façons traditionnelles de se représenter la division du travail en secteurs (la chimie, l’agriculture, l’énergie). Les acteurs qui cherchent à constituer cet espace les recomposent dans un champ original et spécifique. Ce champ est fondé sur l’usage de ressources renouvelables végétales, animales et algales. Les acteurs constituant le champ se proposent d’être une « industrie des industries ». Ils fourniraient, non pas des produits finaux, mais des produits intermédiaires, agro-alimentaires ou destinés à la chimie, aux matériaux et à l’énergie. Ce champ ne comprend pas par exemple le photovoltaïque. La bioéconomie recompose les relations entre agriculture et chimie, en (re)faisant de la première un fournisseur de la seconde. Nous mobilisons la notion de régimes de production de connaissances et d’activités économiques pour décrire la diversité des promesses technologiques faites par les acteurs. Nous montrons alors que la bioéconomie ne peut se réduire à la « révolution biotechnologique ». Trois grandes visions de la bioéconomie se confrontent. A un niveau plus fin, on présente trois cas de cette diversité. Les acteurs portent une « économie des promesses » à partir de leurs patrimoines productifs collectifs respectifs qu’ils cherchent à reproduire et projeter dans le futur. Cela donne lieu, de leur part, à un travail de problématisation de l’espace de la bioéconomie, qui détermine leur allocation de ressources.This thesis analyses the emergence of a new economic space from a mesoeconomic regulationist and evolutionist approach. This space has been called "bioeconomy" by the actors after divergent and conflictual interpretations of this concept. This economic space differs from the traditional ways of representing the division of labour into sectors (chemistry, agriculture, energy). The actors involved in seeking to define this space are reconstructing these sectors into an original and specific field, which is built on the use of biobased plant, animal and algal renewable resources. These actors consider themselves to be becoming the "industry of industries". Thus, instead of providing end products, they produce intermediates for agro- or chemical industries, materials or energy. The field does not cover photovoltaic electricity. Therefore, bioeconomy is a recomposition of the relationships between agriculture and chemistry in which the former becomes the supplier for the latter. We use the concept of the regimes of production of knowledge and of economic activity to describe the diversity of the technological promises made by the actors involved. We show, therefore, that bioeconomy cannot be reduced to the biotechnological revolution. Three broad views of bioeconomy emerge. At a deeper level, we present here three case studies to illustrate this diversity. The actors are weighed down by an "economy of promises" based on their own productive heritages that they are trying to reproduce and project into the future. This leads them to problematize the bioeconomy space in order to determine their resource allocations

Deconstructing substitution narratives: The case of bioeconomy innovations from the forest-based sector

International audienceUnder the European Union's bioeconomy strategy, wood-based bioeconomy innovations are expected to produce a stream of marketable substitutive products (lignin-based products, textiles, polymers, chemicals, oils, construction materials, etc). By analyzing how different actors frame substitution, this article advances our theoretical understanding of the drop-in vs functional-innovations (DIFI) framework and critiques the current innovation trajectory that the forest-based sector has embarked upon. The proposed approach sheds light on the role that actors attribute to innovation in the bioeconomy by linking the question of expectations with technological promises and bioeconomy imaginaries. In this respect, this discussion is of relevance for bioeconomy innovation scholars, policymakers, and entrepreneurs seeking to go beyond the current “substitution is the solution” storyline of the forest industry and instead, help shape bioeconomy innovations that have the potential to bring about sustainable and transformative change

Identify, Organize and Add Value to the Relevant Scales of the Territory

International audienc

Exploring transformative policy imaginaries for a sustainable Post-COVID society

The COVID-19 crisis and its underlying health, socio-economic and environmental challenges warrants a discussion about transformative policies for a more sustainable, post-pandemic world. At EU level, policy packages and initiatives such as the European Green Deal (EGD), the Bioeconomy Strategy (BES) or the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) may have the prerequisites to support a sustainable socio-economic transformation. But can these initiatives live up to public imaginaries of a sustainable post-pandemic world? To answer this question, we conducted a qualitative media analysis in order to outline emerging public imaginaries, as well as different policy suggestions put forth by different media outlets. We then grouped these imaginaries into seven major themes ranging from finance to resource management and city planning. With the help of the Delphi approach, we discussed these themes with a panel of ten international experts in order to scope for different transformative policy options. The public imaginaries we identified represent a mix of imaginaries underpinned by different political ideologies, economic philosophies and sustainability rationales. The highest expectations were connected to the EGD, although none of the EU policy packages can singlehandedly tackle the urgent sustainability challenges posed by the pandemic. However, the current trajectory of the EGD is geared towards the business-as-usual. We discuss how EU policies can overcome this limitation and imagine more radical transformation pathways in order to jumpstart a sustainable post-COVID recovery that goes beyond pursuing green growth. </p

Technological lock-in and pathways for crop diversification in the bio-economy

Chapter 24International audienceCrop diversification would improve the sustainability of Western agricultural production systems, yet few farmers have adopted this approach. This chapter presents an economic analysis of the main lock-in effects explaining why cropping diversity has not become widespread. Technological lock-in has resulted from the coevolution of crop systems (based on the post-WWII agrochemical paradigm), public policies, and market dynamics that promote major crops such as cereals. This chapter explains how interrelated factors have favored increasing returns to adoption for cereals to the detriment of minor crops. The evolutionary economics approach used here identifies the main economic mechanisms that reinforce the choice of an initial production pathway. Today with the development of the bio-economy, we also examine whether new technological pathways in the agro-food sector may be able to reverse this lock-in

The Circular Bioeconomy

International audienceInterest in issues surrounding sustainable production-consumption systems and alternatives to fossil fuels is booming. The circular bioeconomy is currently mainstreamed in policy-making, industry and academia as an important part of the solution to the climate crisis and towards the creation of more sustainable economies. Based on the University-level teaching and research experience of the four authors in Italy, Finland, and France, this textbook fills an important gap in the literature by providing an in-depth and unique guide to the circular bioeconomy. The chapters critically discuss the potential contribution of a circular bioeconomy to fostering societal and organizational transformations towards sustainability globally. This timely book joins a suite of important new titles on sustainability, environmental and ecological economics

The complex relationships between non-food agriculture and the sustainable bioeconomy: The French case

International audienceThe article studies the diversity of models of sustainable bioeconomy by focusing on the productive strategies of the farmers who engage in it. To account for this diversity, we use the framework of analysis of Beckert's socio-economics of capitalism in terms of compromises between four institutionalised economic processes: commodification, competition, innovation, and financing. We complete it by a fifth institutionalised process: the social relationship to the environment. We apply this framework analysis to the results obtained through a qualitative survey of 85 actors in the Grand Est region (France) involved in the bioeconomy between 2017 and 2021. We identify four models for the agricultural non-food bioeconomy that fit into various value chains and which approach sustainability issues differently