238 L. Scordato et al.
acting as a “facilitator” and the Finnish government as a “director of transition” for the bioeconomy, for instance (Bosman & Rotmans, 2016). The
novelty of the bioeconomy as a concept has also been stressed by Hilgartner
(2007). In a critical analysis of the definition of the bioeconomy promoted by
the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD), he
argues that this has created “a new policy- oriented machinery suited to the
work of ongoing technoeconomic anticipation” (Hilgartner, 2007, p. 385).
At the same time, he raises critical concerns for how the bioeconomy definition of the OECD takes “economic operations as its distinctive focus”, as this
places other policy fields, such as the environment, health, and agro- food, in
secondary positions. He therefore calls for a “reflexive examination” of a
highly political concept, as the bioeconomy as a policy field has emerged to
be (Hilgartner, 2007). In sum, this suggests that the notion of the bioeconomy has developed as a complex and highly contested policy field.
Although subject to increasing interest in the last decade, there is, thus, still
little clarity in terms of what the notion of the bioeconomy implies and
means. In an attempt to improve our understanding of the different perspectives on the bioeconomy, Bugge et al. (2016) have distinguished between
three visions of what the bioeconomy constitutes. These are (1) the biotechnology vision; (2) the bio- resource vision; and (3) the bio- ecology vision.
The bio- technology vision emphasises the importance of the application and
commercialisation of bio- technology in different sectors. The objectives of
the bio- technology vision relate to economic growth and job creation
(Pollack, 2012; Staffas et al., 2013). Value creation is based on the application of biotechnologies in various sectors, as well as on the commercialisation of research and technology within the framework of a globalised
economy. As such, the bio- technology vision is in many ways similar to
the so- called linear model of innovation, where a science push is seen as
the primary driver of innovation and economic growth. Within this vision,
close interaction between universities and industry is needed in order to
commercialise relevant research (Zilberman, Kim, Kirschner, Kaplan, &
Reeves, 2013).
The bio- resource vision focuses on the processing of bio- based resources as
the primary driver and objective for innovation and economic growth.
Whereas economic growth in the bio- technology vision is based on capitalising on biotechnologies, growth in the bio- resource vision is expected to
come from capitalising on bio- resources. Value creation in the bio- resource
vision emphasises the processing and conversion of bio- resources into new
products. In addition to an optimisation of land use and existing value chains,
waste management and the development of new value chains are also
important in this vision. Moreover, the role of research, development, and
demonstration (RD and D) is central. Whereas the bio- technology vision
takes a point of departure in the potential applicability of science, the bioresource vision emphasises the potential of upgrading and converting the biological raw materials.
acting as a “facilitator” and the Finnish government as a “director of transition” for the bioeconomy, for instance (Bosman & Rotmans, 2016). The
novelty of the bioeconomy as a concept has also been stressed by Hilgartner
(2007). In a critical analysis of the definition of the bioeconomy promoted by
the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD), he
argues that this has created “a new policy- oriented machinery suited to the
work of ongoing technoeconomic anticipation” (Hilgartner, 2007, p. 385).
At the same time, he raises critical concerns for how the bioeconomy definition of the OECD takes “economic operations as its distinctive focus”, as this
places other policy fields, such as the environment, health, and agro- food, in
secondary positions. He therefore calls for a “reflexive examination” of a
highly political concept, as the bioeconomy as a policy field has emerged to
be (Hilgartner, 2007). In sum, this suggests that the notion of the bioeconomy has developed as a complex and highly contested policy field.
Although subject to increasing interest in the last decade, there is, thus, still
little clarity in terms of what the notion of the bioeconomy implies and
means. In an attempt to improve our understanding of the different perspectives on the bioeconomy, Bugge et al. (2016) have distinguished between
three visions of what the bioeconomy constitutes. These are (1) the biotechnology vision; (2) the bio- resource vision; and (3) the bio- ecology vision.
The bio- technology vision emphasises the importance of the application and
commercialisation of bio- technology in different sectors. The objectives of
the bio- technology vision relate to economic growth and job creation
(Pollack, 2012; Staffas et al., 2013). Value creation is based on the application of biotechnologies in various sectors, as well as on the commercialisation of research and technology within the framework of a globalised
economy. As such, the bio- technology vision is in many ways similar to
the so- called linear model of innovation, where a science push is seen as
the primary driver of innovation and economic growth. Within this vision,
close interaction between universities and industry is needed in order to
commercialise relevant research (Zilberman, Kim, Kirschner, Kaplan, &
Reeves, 2013).
The bio- resource vision focuses on the processing of bio- based resources as
the primary driver and objective for innovation and economic growth.
Whereas economic growth in the bio- technology vision is based on capitalising on biotechnologies, growth in the bio- resource vision is expected to
come from capitalising on bio- resources. Value creation in the bio- resource
vision emphasises the processing and conversion of bio- resources into new
products. In addition to an optimisation of land use and existing value chains,
waste management and the development of new value chains are also
important in this vision. Moreover, the role of research, development, and
demonstration (RD and D) is central. Whereas the bio- technology vision
takes a point of departure in the potential applicability of science, the bioresource vision emphasises the potential of upgrading and converting the biological raw materials.