12 Directionality and diversity
Contending policy rationales in the
transition towards the bioeconomy
Lisa Scordato, Markus M. Bugge, and
Arne Martin Fevolden
12.1 Introduction
One of the pressing societal challenges today relates to climate change
and the need to replace fossil- based inputs with renewable resources in
the production of fuel, energy, and chemical compounds. This has resulted
in the development of biofuels, such as bioethanol, biodiesel, and biogas;
bio- products, such as bio- plastics, bio- chemicals, and bio- pharmaceuticals;
and bioenergy, such as electricity and district heating generated at biogas
or combustion plants. The magnitude and diversity of these initiatives have
led scholars, commentators, and policy- makers to talk about a “bioeconomy” and, subsequently, to call for a more comprehensive policy framework to support and direct this emerging field of the economy. The
bioeconomy concept has been embraced by many governments around the
world with a view to responding to diverse societal challenges, including
not only solving issues related to climate change, but also dealing with areas
such as food security, resource efficiency, and health problems (German
Bioeconomy Council, 2015; Staffas, Gustavsson, & McCormick, 2013).
Nevertheless, it remains unclear what the bioeconomy is, and how it
can contribute to achieving these broad and potentially contending policy
objectives.
In recent years, a growing body of academic literature has emerged that
aims to understand the roles of the bioeconomy in mitigating the challenges
of climate change, and which also tries to disentangle the notion of the bioeconomy and its implications for governance. A recent contribution from
Bugge et al. shows that the notion of the bioeconomy is multifaceted and
covers several sectors and meanings, including different “rationales or visions
of the underlying values, directions and drivers of the bioeconomy” (Bugge,
Hansen, & Klitkou, 2016). Opposing rationales may also reflect the diversity
of the sectors and policy areas involved, which stresses the need for horizontal
policy mixes across sectors (Bugge et al., 2016).
Theorising on the governance of socio- technical transitions has emphasised
the need for an active state, formulating societal needs and establishing the
direction in socio- technical transitions.
Contending policy rationales in the
transition towards the bioeconomy
Lisa Scordato, Markus M. Bugge, and
Arne Martin Fevolden
12.1 Introduction
One of the pressing societal challenges today relates to climate change
and the need to replace fossil- based inputs with renewable resources in
the production of fuel, energy, and chemical compounds. This has resulted
in the development of biofuels, such as bioethanol, biodiesel, and biogas;
bio- products, such as bio- plastics, bio- chemicals, and bio- pharmaceuticals;
and bioenergy, such as electricity and district heating generated at biogas
or combustion plants. The magnitude and diversity of these initiatives have
led scholars, commentators, and policy- makers to talk about a “bioeconomy” and, subsequently, to call for a more comprehensive policy framework to support and direct this emerging field of the economy. The
bioeconomy concept has been embraced by many governments around the
world with a view to responding to diverse societal challenges, including
not only solving issues related to climate change, but also dealing with areas
such as food security, resource efficiency, and health problems (German
Bioeconomy Council, 2015; Staffas, Gustavsson, & McCormick, 2013).
Nevertheless, it remains unclear what the bioeconomy is, and how it
can contribute to achieving these broad and potentially contending policy
objectives.
In recent years, a growing body of academic literature has emerged that
aims to understand the roles of the bioeconomy in mitigating the challenges
of climate change, and which also tries to disentangle the notion of the bioeconomy and its implications for governance. A recent contribution from
Bugge et al. shows that the notion of the bioeconomy is multifaceted and
covers several sectors and meanings, including different “rationales or visions
of the underlying values, directions and drivers of the bioeconomy” (Bugge,
Hansen, & Klitkou, 2016). Opposing rationales may also reflect the diversity
of the sectors and policy areas involved, which stresses the need for horizontal
policy mixes across sectors (Bugge et al., 2016).
Theorising on the governance of socio- technical transitions has emphasised
the need for an active state, formulating societal needs and establishing the
direction in socio- technical transitions.