242 L. Scordato et al.
in large quantities. Seen together, this development path has created an imbalance in the Norwegian bioeconomy, in which the seafood sector can be
described as an export leader that is seeking to expand its markets abroad; the
agricultural sector can be described as an export lightweight that is seeking to
protect its domestic markets from foreign import; and the forestry sector can
be seen as a struggling has- been that is seeking to find new ways of regaining
some of its former glory.
Although many resource- based economies have become victims of the
“resource curse”, Norway has – along with a few other countries, such as
Australia – been able to reach modern levels of development while relying
extensively on the extraction and refinement of natural resources. Ville and
Wicken argue that what distinguishes the successful from the less successful
resource- based economies is their ability to diversify into new “resource
products and industries”, through a dynamic interplay between the natural
resource industries and the knowledge- producing and disseminating sectors
within their societies (Ville & Wicken, 2012). Ville and Wicken describe
these knowledge- producing and disseminating sectors as “enabling sectors”
that are typically composed of capital goods suppliers and R and D institutions, and they maintain that a healthy interplay between these enabling
sectors and the natural resource industries leads to both improved productivity in old resource- based sectors and the development of new resource- based
industries. For instance, they found that the development of a strong mechanical engineering industry played a crucial role in establishing a vibrant Norwegian wood processing industry, and that Norwegian marine biologists
helped the fisheries develop and make use of new fishing methods, thereby
improving their productivity (Ville & Wicken, 2012).
Today, this dynamic interplay between the enabling sectors and the natural
resource industries defines the working of Norway’s bioeconomy. In terms of
R and D institutions, most of the Norwegian bio- industries rely on a range
of well- developed scientific institutions. The seafood industry benefits from
research carried out in as many as 20 semi- public and private research institutes, of which some of the most important institutions include the Norwegian Veterinary Institute and the Norwegian College of Fishery Science
(Doloreux, Isaksen, Aslesen, & Melançon, 2009). The agriculture and forestry
industries also rely on strong academic institutions – such as the Norwegian
University of Life Sciences (NMBU) and the Norwegian University of
Science and Technology (NTNU) – both of which carry out a considerable
amount of relevant R and D (Klitkou, 2010). In terms of capital goods suppliers, the seafood industry has a much more developed industrial base to
draw upon nationally than the agriculture and forestry industries. The seafood
industry – and in particular the aquaculture sector – can rely on a large group
of mostly small- and medium- sized suppliers that carry out a substantial
amount of R and D, and it is generally considered to be at the technological
forefront of this area globally (Doloreux et al., 2009). The agricultural and
forestry sectors, on the other hand, rely on national suppliers that import
in large quantities. Seen together, this development path has created an imbalance in the Norwegian bioeconomy, in which the seafood sector can be
described as an export leader that is seeking to expand its markets abroad; the
agricultural sector can be described as an export lightweight that is seeking to
protect its domestic markets from foreign import; and the forestry sector can
be seen as a struggling has- been that is seeking to find new ways of regaining
some of its former glory.
Although many resource- based economies have become victims of the
“resource curse”, Norway has – along with a few other countries, such as
Australia – been able to reach modern levels of development while relying
extensively on the extraction and refinement of natural resources. Ville and
Wicken argue that what distinguishes the successful from the less successful
resource- based economies is their ability to diversify into new “resource
products and industries”, through a dynamic interplay between the natural
resource industries and the knowledge- producing and disseminating sectors
within their societies (Ville & Wicken, 2012). Ville and Wicken describe
these knowledge- producing and disseminating sectors as “enabling sectors”
that are typically composed of capital goods suppliers and R and D institutions, and they maintain that a healthy interplay between these enabling
sectors and the natural resource industries leads to both improved productivity in old resource- based sectors and the development of new resource- based
industries. For instance, they found that the development of a strong mechanical engineering industry played a crucial role in establishing a vibrant Norwegian wood processing industry, and that Norwegian marine biologists
helped the fisheries develop and make use of new fishing methods, thereby
improving their productivity (Ville & Wicken, 2012).
Today, this dynamic interplay between the enabling sectors and the natural
resource industries defines the working of Norway’s bioeconomy. In terms of
R and D institutions, most of the Norwegian bio- industries rely on a range
of well- developed scientific institutions. The seafood industry benefits from
research carried out in as many as 20 semi- public and private research institutes, of which some of the most important institutions include the Norwegian Veterinary Institute and the Norwegian College of Fishery Science
(Doloreux, Isaksen, Aslesen, & Melançon, 2009). The agriculture and forestry
industries also rely on strong academic institutions – such as the Norwegian
University of Life Sciences (NMBU) and the Norwegian University of
Science and Technology (NTNU) – both of which carry out a considerable
amount of relevant R and D (Klitkou, 2010). In terms of capital goods suppliers, the seafood industry has a much more developed industrial base to
draw upon nationally than the agriculture and forestry industries. The seafood
industry – and in particular the aquaculture sector – can rely on a large group
of mostly small- and medium- sized suppliers that carry out a substantial
amount of R and D, and it is generally considered to be at the technological
forefront of this area globally (Doloreux et al., 2009). The agricultural and
forestry sectors, on the other hand, rely on national suppliers that import