The knowledge base of the bioeconomy 191
literature as well as affiliated approaches such as the Triple Helix (e.g. Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995). Below, we focus on Sectoral Systems of
Innovation (Malerba, 2004) as the most relevant approach with which to
frame our study of the formative bioeconomy.
In this light, the circular bioeconomy can be considered a meta- discourse
that engages a range of interests in academic spheres and political spheres
(Pülzl, Kleinschmit & Arts, 2014). The growing academic work on the bioeconomy is echoed by policy discourse around the world that has repeatedly
underlined the necessity of building knowledge for the future bioeconomy
(Staffas, Gustavsson & McCormick, 2013). For instance, the European Commission’s strategy for the bioeconomy (2012) calls for investments in research,
innovation and skills as central policy interventions. In the US, the National
Bioeconomy Blueprint has outlined support of research and development
(R&D) investments, as well as updating training programmes to secure the
right competences needed in the bioeconomic workforce (The White House,
2012), while in Norway, the government’s bioeconomy strategy emphasises
that knowledge building and investments in research and innovation are
important aspects of developing a modern bioeconomy (Departementene,
2016).
10.2.1 Knowledge and the bioeconomy
In the formative ‘bioeconomy’, it is particularly worth emphasising the
importance of knowledge and learning and the role that public policy can
play to promote it. Our empirical look at how knowledge production is
organised and what knowledge bases are involved in the bioeconomy starts
from a longstanding evolutionary tradition in economics. The case for the
importance of knowledge to innovation, industrial change and, in turn, the
changing sectoral composition of the economy has been consistently and convincingly made in the evolutionary economics literature that grew out of
Nelson and Winter (1982).
Innovation systems are understood to emerge from the complex interaction between a broad range of actors that create and share knowledge,
involving both the creation of new knowledge and/or the combination of
elements of knowledge in new ways (Lundvall, 1992). In general, systems of
innovation are seen as being ‘constituted by elements and relationships that
interact in the production, diffusion and use of new and economically useful
knowledge’ (Lundvall, 2017, p. 86). Edquist (2005) argues that the systems
of innovation approach focuses on three kinds of knowledge/learning:
(1) Research and development, which is conducted by universities, research
institutes and companies; (2) Competence building – creates human capital
through various forms of training and education; (3) Innovation – the
knowledge- related asset controlled by companies.
Studies of biotechnology and information technology have shown that
relationships between companies and actors such as universities and research
literature as well as affiliated approaches such as the Triple Helix (e.g. Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995). Below, we focus on Sectoral Systems of
Innovation (Malerba, 2004) as the most relevant approach with which to
frame our study of the formative bioeconomy.
In this light, the circular bioeconomy can be considered a meta- discourse
that engages a range of interests in academic spheres and political spheres
(Pülzl, Kleinschmit & Arts, 2014). The growing academic work on the bioeconomy is echoed by policy discourse around the world that has repeatedly
underlined the necessity of building knowledge for the future bioeconomy
(Staffas, Gustavsson & McCormick, 2013). For instance, the European Commission’s strategy for the bioeconomy (2012) calls for investments in research,
innovation and skills as central policy interventions. In the US, the National
Bioeconomy Blueprint has outlined support of research and development
(R&D) investments, as well as updating training programmes to secure the
right competences needed in the bioeconomic workforce (The White House,
2012), while in Norway, the government’s bioeconomy strategy emphasises
that knowledge building and investments in research and innovation are
important aspects of developing a modern bioeconomy (Departementene,
2016).
10.2.1 Knowledge and the bioeconomy
In the formative ‘bioeconomy’, it is particularly worth emphasising the
importance of knowledge and learning and the role that public policy can
play to promote it. Our empirical look at how knowledge production is
organised and what knowledge bases are involved in the bioeconomy starts
from a longstanding evolutionary tradition in economics. The case for the
importance of knowledge to innovation, industrial change and, in turn, the
changing sectoral composition of the economy has been consistently and convincingly made in the evolutionary economics literature that grew out of
Nelson and Winter (1982).
Innovation systems are understood to emerge from the complex interaction between a broad range of actors that create and share knowledge,
involving both the creation of new knowledge and/or the combination of
elements of knowledge in new ways (Lundvall, 1992). In general, systems of
innovation are seen as being ‘constituted by elements and relationships that
interact in the production, diffusion and use of new and economically useful
knowledge’ (Lundvall, 2017, p. 86). Edquist (2005) argues that the systems
of innovation approach focuses on three kinds of knowledge/learning:
(1) Research and development, which is conducted by universities, research
institutes and companies; (2) Competence building – creates human capital
through various forms of training and education; (3) Innovation – the
knowledge- related asset controlled by companies.
Studies of biotechnology and information technology have shown that
relationships between companies and actors such as universities and research