raw materials, infrastructure, and qualified professionals in the prioritized areas.
Undoubtedly, the above-mentioned aspects are difficult to access in the short term.
As a second alternative, variations in the final consumption of goods and services
are proposed, focusing mainly on household consumption as shown in Fig. 3.7b.
This premise consists in consumers preferring goods and services based on the
bioeconomy, displacing the preferences for traditional goods of fossil origin or
more polluting technologies. Notice that variations in final consumption do not
consider variations in exports, reflecting the importance of oil exports, since the
economy is still very sensitive to variations in this sector. It bares mentioning that
variations of consumption would assume the existence of incentives to consumers,
which can be channeled through tax incentives to sectors based on the bioeconomy
or market regulation for traditional products, i.e., structured approaches in a public
policy aiming for the development of the bioeconomy in the country.
3.8
Conclusion
The international scientific community acknowledges Ecuador’s biodiversity as a
competitive advantage whose potential is still not fully comprehended locally.
Despite the institutional and academic local interest in the bioeconomy as a means
for a transition of the productive matrix, the discussion is still lacking studies that
quantify the sector or its potential. We hope that the present work nourishes the topic
by assessing the current contribution of the bioeconomy sector to the Ecuadorian
GDP. We evaluate the available methodologies for this exercise considering five
criteria. Based on a comparison of the models, the input–output matrix ranks best in
terms of comparability and external validity. The contribution of the bioeconomy
sector in Ecuador was then calculated in terms of employment, total wage bill,
consumption, production, gross added value, and taxes on production. In almost
all aspects, except for total wage bill and taxes on production, the contribution share
of the bioeconomy sector ranks second. The methodology proposed gives room for
the measurement of the impacts of bioeconomic measures in developing economies.
Acknowledgement This study was completed, thanks to the helpful feedback and funding of the
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA).
References
Acosta A (2004) Dolarización o desdolarización, ¡esa no es toda la cuestión! Iconos 19:54–65
Akinnuli BO, Ayodeji SP, Omeiza AJ (2014) Computer aided design for cocoa beans processing
yield prediction. Int J Appl Sci Technol 4(5):82–91
Arrow K, Debreu G (1954) Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econométrica
22(3):265–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4068(97)83316-2
Baca LA (2016) La producción de maíz amarillo en el Ecuador y su relación con la soberanía
alimentaria. Pontifica Universidad Católica de Guayaquil
3 Social and Economic Contribution of the Bioeconomic Sector in Ecuador: A. . .
61
Undoubtedly, the above-mentioned aspects are difficult to access in the short term.
As a second alternative, variations in the final consumption of goods and services
are proposed, focusing mainly on household consumption as shown in Fig. 3.7b.
This premise consists in consumers preferring goods and services based on the
bioeconomy, displacing the preferences for traditional goods of fossil origin or
more polluting technologies. Notice that variations in final consumption do not
consider variations in exports, reflecting the importance of oil exports, since the
economy is still very sensitive to variations in this sector. It bares mentioning that
variations of consumption would assume the existence of incentives to consumers,
which can be channeled through tax incentives to sectors based on the bioeconomy
or market regulation for traditional products, i.e., structured approaches in a public
policy aiming for the development of the bioeconomy in the country.
3.8
Conclusion
The international scientific community acknowledges Ecuador’s biodiversity as a
competitive advantage whose potential is still not fully comprehended locally.
Despite the institutional and academic local interest in the bioeconomy as a means
for a transition of the productive matrix, the discussion is still lacking studies that
quantify the sector or its potential. We hope that the present work nourishes the topic
by assessing the current contribution of the bioeconomy sector to the Ecuadorian
GDP. We evaluate the available methodologies for this exercise considering five
criteria. Based on a comparison of the models, the input–output matrix ranks best in
terms of comparability and external validity. The contribution of the bioeconomy
sector in Ecuador was then calculated in terms of employment, total wage bill,
consumption, production, gross added value, and taxes on production. In almost
all aspects, except for total wage bill and taxes on production, the contribution share
of the bioeconomy sector ranks second. The methodology proposed gives room for
the measurement of the impacts of bioeconomic measures in developing economies.
Acknowledgement This study was completed, thanks to the helpful feedback and funding of the
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA).
References
Acosta A (2004) Dolarización o desdolarización, ¡esa no es toda la cuestión! Iconos 19:54–65
Akinnuli BO, Ayodeji SP, Omeiza AJ (2014) Computer aided design for cocoa beans processing
yield prediction. Int J Appl Sci Technol 4(5):82–91
Arrow K, Debreu G (1954) Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econométrica
22(3):265–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4068(97)83316-2
Baca LA (2016) La producción de maíz amarillo en el Ecuador y su relación con la soberanía
alimentaria. Pontifica Universidad Católica de Guayaquil
3 Social and Economic Contribution of the Bioeconomic Sector in Ecuador: A. . .
61