Directionality and diversity 241
(a) actors; (b) their statements and advice; and (c) their visions on the bioeconomy. (At the time of writing, the Norwegian bioeconomy strategy was
not yet published.)
We use three ideal visions of the bioeconomy to identify the prevailing
and potentially contending understandings of what the bioeconomy constitutes, and the diverse bases and perspectives that actors may have on this field.
The ideal types are used as a method of interpretative analysis for understanding the way actors and organisations view a defined context, and to facilitate comparisons. In this sense, ideal types do not conform completely to
reality, but are simplified models of interpretation (Thornton & Ocasio,
2008). Moreover, these visions should not be considered to be completely
distinct from each other, but interrelated (Bugge et al., 2016). Table 12.1
illustrates the key characteristics of the three bio- economy visions, with their
respective implications in terms of overall aim, value creation, drivers and
mediators of innovation, and spatial implications. Hence, we expect that these
visions also co- exist across heterogeneous bioeconomy stakeholders.
Although Bugge et al.’s (2016) bioeconomy visions constitute a useful tool
for classifying the written submissions to the public inquiry process, there are
also some methodological challenges related to applying these visions to new
contexts. First, the visions were primarily created based on analysing academic
articles, and these might not express ideas and ideals that are prevalent among
NGOs, industry associations, and private companies. Second, the visions
reflect the scientific discourse through the last decade and, thus, refer to ideas
that were sometimes expressed many years ago, which might not be equally
relevant for processes that are ongoing today. Nevertheless, we believe that
these potential methodological challenges are minor, and that we were able
to deal with them effectively by carefully reading and cataloguing the written
inputs to the public hearing.
12.4 Background
Over the past century, Norway has developed a strong resource- based
economy. It has established strong industries within forestry, aquaculture, and
petroleum, and these resource- based industries have typically accounted for
about 80%–90% of the country’s exports. Nevertheless, the relative importance of these natural resource sectors has varied over time (Ville & Wicken,
2012). In the early 1900s, the prominent export products were fish and
wood, in addition to relatively smaller quantities of paper and minerals
(Ryggvig, 1996). Today, the most prominent export products are oil and gas
and related petroleum products, in addition to relatively smaller quantities of
fish and metals (see Statistics Norway). If we look specifically at bio- resources,
fish was already an important export product in the early 1900s and is, today,
by far the largest bio- based export product. Wood products were important
in the early 1900s, but have lost much of their market share in the past
decade. Agricultural products, on the other hand, have never been exported
(a) actors; (b) their statements and advice; and (c) their visions on the bioeconomy. (At the time of writing, the Norwegian bioeconomy strategy was
not yet published.)
We use three ideal visions of the bioeconomy to identify the prevailing
and potentially contending understandings of what the bioeconomy constitutes, and the diverse bases and perspectives that actors may have on this field.
The ideal types are used as a method of interpretative analysis for understanding the way actors and organisations view a defined context, and to facilitate comparisons. In this sense, ideal types do not conform completely to
reality, but are simplified models of interpretation (Thornton & Ocasio,
2008). Moreover, these visions should not be considered to be completely
distinct from each other, but interrelated (Bugge et al., 2016). Table 12.1
illustrates the key characteristics of the three bio- economy visions, with their
respective implications in terms of overall aim, value creation, drivers and
mediators of innovation, and spatial implications. Hence, we expect that these
visions also co- exist across heterogeneous bioeconomy stakeholders.
Although Bugge et al.’s (2016) bioeconomy visions constitute a useful tool
for classifying the written submissions to the public inquiry process, there are
also some methodological challenges related to applying these visions to new
contexts. First, the visions were primarily created based on analysing academic
articles, and these might not express ideas and ideals that are prevalent among
NGOs, industry associations, and private companies. Second, the visions
reflect the scientific discourse through the last decade and, thus, refer to ideas
that were sometimes expressed many years ago, which might not be equally
relevant for processes that are ongoing today. Nevertheless, we believe that
these potential methodological challenges are minor, and that we were able
to deal with them effectively by carefully reading and cataloguing the written
inputs to the public hearing.
12.4 Background
Over the past century, Norway has developed a strong resource- based
economy. It has established strong industries within forestry, aquaculture, and
petroleum, and these resource- based industries have typically accounted for
about 80%–90% of the country’s exports. Nevertheless, the relative importance of these natural resource sectors has varied over time (Ville & Wicken,
2012). In the early 1900s, the prominent export products were fish and
wood, in addition to relatively smaller quantities of paper and minerals
(Ryggvig, 1996). Today, the most prominent export products are oil and gas
and related petroleum products, in addition to relatively smaller quantities of
fish and metals (see Statistics Norway). If we look specifically at bio- resources,
fish was already an important export product in the early 1900s and is, today,
by far the largest bio- based export product. Wood products were important
in the early 1900s, but have lost much of their market share in the past
decade. Agricultural products, on the other hand, have never been exported