234 L. Scordato et al.
The urgent need for green innovation requires policies that are not merely
designed to improve coordination and fix market failures, but that are based
on clear strategies aimed at reducing the risks and uncertainties in the field
(Mazzucato, 2013; Weber & Rohracher, 2012). At the same time, it is
increasingly acknowledged that, when compared with traditional policy fields,
challenge- oriented policy measures require more demand- side policies, such
as public procurement stretching across policy domains. Finally, it is assumed
that the coordination and reflexivity needed in such societal transitions can be
perceived as a form of meta- governance. The involvement of a broad range
of actors in agenda setting is perceived as crucial. A pertinent question,
however, is what the implications of such participative governance suggest, in
terms of the possibilities for policy- makers to direct transitions in an effective
and efficient way.
Against this background, the aim of this chapter is to improve our understanding of whether and in what way the bioeconomy consists of contending
rationales for governance and policy- making. In order to do this, we apply a
typology of three visions of the bioeconomy onto the policy discourse on the
bioeconomy. This typology distinguishes between (i) bio- technology visions,
emphasising the importance of biotechnology and its commercial applications; (ii) a bio- resources vision, focusing on processing and upgrading biological raw materials, as well as establishing new value chains; and (iii) a
bio- ecology vision, which highlights sustainability and ecological processes,
including biodiversity. This typology was created by Bugge et al. (2016)
through an extensive review of the scientific literature that dealt explicitly
with conceptual aspects of the bioeconomy, focusing on areas such as innovation and value creation, driving forces, governance, and the spatial implications of the bioeconomy.
The chapter applies these visions to a number of submissions in a public
inquiry process on the development of a national strategy for the bioeconomy
in Norway. Through the analysis, the chapter seeks to depict (a) the types of
actors involved in shaping the direction of the new bio- based economy and
(b) their positions on this emerging field. Based on this analysis, the chapter
discusses the implications and possibilities for governance in setting the direction for the current socio- technical transition.
The chapter is structured as follows: in section 12.2, we describe the conceptual framework for the analysis. Section 12.3 will then outline the
approach and methods used to analyse the empirical material. In section 12.4,
some background on the Norwegian economy is outlined. The results from
the analysis are presented in section 12.5. Finally, section 12.6 concludes the
chapter by summing up the findings and reflecting upon their implications.
12.2 Conceptual framework
Over the last couple of decades, there has been increasing interest among
innovation scholars and policy- makers in grand challenges and socio- technical
The urgent need for green innovation requires policies that are not merely
designed to improve coordination and fix market failures, but that are based
on clear strategies aimed at reducing the risks and uncertainties in the field
(Mazzucato, 2013; Weber & Rohracher, 2012). At the same time, it is
increasingly acknowledged that, when compared with traditional policy fields,
challenge- oriented policy measures require more demand- side policies, such
as public procurement stretching across policy domains. Finally, it is assumed
that the coordination and reflexivity needed in such societal transitions can be
perceived as a form of meta- governance. The involvement of a broad range
of actors in agenda setting is perceived as crucial. A pertinent question,
however, is what the implications of such participative governance suggest, in
terms of the possibilities for policy- makers to direct transitions in an effective
and efficient way.
Against this background, the aim of this chapter is to improve our understanding of whether and in what way the bioeconomy consists of contending
rationales for governance and policy- making. In order to do this, we apply a
typology of three visions of the bioeconomy onto the policy discourse on the
bioeconomy. This typology distinguishes between (i) bio- technology visions,
emphasising the importance of biotechnology and its commercial applications; (ii) a bio- resources vision, focusing on processing and upgrading biological raw materials, as well as establishing new value chains; and (iii) a
bio- ecology vision, which highlights sustainability and ecological processes,
including biodiversity. This typology was created by Bugge et al. (2016)
through an extensive review of the scientific literature that dealt explicitly
with conceptual aspects of the bioeconomy, focusing on areas such as innovation and value creation, driving forces, governance, and the spatial implications of the bioeconomy.
The chapter applies these visions to a number of submissions in a public
inquiry process on the development of a national strategy for the bioeconomy
in Norway. Through the analysis, the chapter seeks to depict (a) the types of
actors involved in shaping the direction of the new bio- based economy and
(b) their positions on this emerging field. Based on this analysis, the chapter
discusses the implications and possibilities for governance in setting the direction for the current socio- technical transition.
The chapter is structured as follows: in section 12.2, we describe the conceptual framework for the analysis. Section 12.3 will then outline the
approach and methods used to analyse the empirical material. In section 12.4,
some background on the Norwegian economy is outlined. The results from
the analysis are presented in section 12.5. Finally, section 12.6 concludes the
chapter by summing up the findings and reflecting upon their implications.
12.2 Conceptual framework
Over the last couple of decades, there has been increasing interest among
innovation scholars and policy- makers in grand challenges and socio- technical