Directionality and diversity 237
politics have increasingly started to be seen in connection with the multilevel perspective, with the actors of existing socio- technical regimes treated as
actively resisting change and protecting their current positions in the existing
regime.
12.2.1 Contending visions on the bioeconomy
The notion that grand challenges transcend sector boundaries is especially relevant in the case of the bioeconomy. The development of a bioeconomy
represents a move from fossil- based to bio- based products, fuel, and energy,
and can, therefore, be seen as a way to address the grand challenge of climate
change. However, the notion of the bioeconomy can also be seen to address
other grand challenges related to food security, health, industrial restructuring, and energy security (Ollikainen, 2014; Pülzl, Kleinschmit, & Arts, 2014;
Richardson, 2012). The bioeconomy can thus be seen as a generic phenomenon spanning a broad range of technologies and sectors of the economy,
such as the agriculture, marine, forestry, bioenergy, chemicals, materials, and
health sectors. Nevertheless, it is important to stress that a transition to a sustainable bioeconomy does not constitute a predetermined path, but still
remains an open, future possibility. It is not something that will necessarily
happen, and it will only occur through considerable and coordinated efforts,
which will involve a wide range of actors. The bioeconomy has been
conceptualised by previous scholars as a particular policy ambition and
framework (Birch, Levidow, & Papaioannou, 2010; Levidow, Birch, &
Papaioannou, 2012), representing “a techno- economic imaginary of the
future that is co- produced with certain policies, institutions, and infrastructures that are framed as desirable and possible, while others are framed as
undesirable and problematic” (Birch, 2016).
Richardson (2012), among others, found considerable difference of
opinion between “farmers and agribusiness, between those convinced and
those sceptical of environmental technofixes, and between pro- corporate and
anti- corporate NGOs” with regards to the use of biotechnology (Richardson,
2012). The tensions arising from biotechnology innovations have also been
emphasised by De Witt, Osseweijer, and Pierce (2015). Conflicting lines exist
around the genetic modification of food, bio- based products, and pharmaceuticals (De Witt et al., 2015). Levidow et al. (2012) argue that the concept of
the bioeconomy is still rather new and is not yet explicitly integrated into
policy- making. In this regard, they suggest that policy strategies which declare
the intentions and visions for the development of a bioeconomy may have an
important role in achieving a transition towards the bioeconomy, and in
determining the direction of the transition, in terms of the funding, instruments, and involved organisations (Birch et al., 2010; de Besi & McCormick,
2015; Levidow et al., 2012). On the other hand, Bosman and Rotmans found
that the governments that have adopted bioeconomy policies already have
approached this policy area quite differently – with the Dutch government
politics have increasingly started to be seen in connection with the multilevel perspective, with the actors of existing socio- technical regimes treated as
actively resisting change and protecting their current positions in the existing
regime.
12.2.1 Contending visions on the bioeconomy
The notion that grand challenges transcend sector boundaries is especially relevant in the case of the bioeconomy. The development of a bioeconomy
represents a move from fossil- based to bio- based products, fuel, and energy,
and can, therefore, be seen as a way to address the grand challenge of climate
change. However, the notion of the bioeconomy can also be seen to address
other grand challenges related to food security, health, industrial restructuring, and energy security (Ollikainen, 2014; Pülzl, Kleinschmit, & Arts, 2014;
Richardson, 2012). The bioeconomy can thus be seen as a generic phenomenon spanning a broad range of technologies and sectors of the economy,
such as the agriculture, marine, forestry, bioenergy, chemicals, materials, and
health sectors. Nevertheless, it is important to stress that a transition to a sustainable bioeconomy does not constitute a predetermined path, but still
remains an open, future possibility. It is not something that will necessarily
happen, and it will only occur through considerable and coordinated efforts,
which will involve a wide range of actors. The bioeconomy has been
conceptualised by previous scholars as a particular policy ambition and
framework (Birch, Levidow, & Papaioannou, 2010; Levidow, Birch, &
Papaioannou, 2012), representing “a techno- economic imaginary of the
future that is co- produced with certain policies, institutions, and infrastructures that are framed as desirable and possible, while others are framed as
undesirable and problematic” (Birch, 2016).
Richardson (2012), among others, found considerable difference of
opinion between “farmers and agribusiness, between those convinced and
those sceptical of environmental technofixes, and between pro- corporate and
anti- corporate NGOs” with regards to the use of biotechnology (Richardson,
2012). The tensions arising from biotechnology innovations have also been
emphasised by De Witt, Osseweijer, and Pierce (2015). Conflicting lines exist
around the genetic modification of food, bio- based products, and pharmaceuticals (De Witt et al., 2015). Levidow et al. (2012) argue that the concept of
the bioeconomy is still rather new and is not yet explicitly integrated into
policy- making. In this regard, they suggest that policy strategies which declare
the intentions and visions for the development of a bioeconomy may have an
important role in achieving a transition towards the bioeconomy, and in
determining the direction of the transition, in terms of the funding, instruments, and involved organisations (Birch et al., 2010; de Besi & McCormick,
2015; Levidow et al., 2012). On the other hand, Bosman and Rotmans found
that the governments that have adopted bioeconomy policies already have
approached this policy area quite differently – with the Dutch government