8.2 Linking Bioeconomy Policy Strategies to Social Impacts
187
influence. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the outcomes have benefited exactly
the primary agents behind biofuel policy-making. This inference reinforces the point
that different strategy designs and outcomes are unlikely to come without a significant
shift within the state or more effective agency from those who are losing out.
8.3 Agency Patterns: State Reemergence Amid
Transnational Actors
8.3.1 Recovered Protagonism: Six Roles of a Prominent State
Although recent scholarship on governance for sustainable development—and particularly on agency—has focused extensively on non-state actors (see Biermann and
Pattberg 2012), this research shows that states have been central in bioeconomy
governance. State protagonism has happened both in the international and domestic
contexts, where they have played many roles. Public policies have been the main
driver of biofuel expansion. Governments have been vital agents seeking coordination with other actors, leading dominant coalitions, and pushing the agenda in all
three case studies. On the one hand, such a state-centered approach to development—
instead of more extensive reliance on an already well-established private sector—may
be a characteristic of emerging economies (Schmalz and Ebenau 2012). On the other
hand, it is useful to examine what issue-specific reasons may have induced that to
happen.
The state has played at least six crucial roles in the biofuel sectors of the examined
cases, which might gain even further prominence in emerging bioeconomy development. While some of those seem to be more usual government functions (e.g., setting
legal frameworks and regulations), others appear to be either new or reemerging functions that demonstrate a (re)conquest of governance space by the state after decades
of strong neoliberalization.
First, the state has performed an enabling role, i.e., in changing regulatory frameworks to allow for biofuel utilization, setting standard quality specifications, creating
blending mandates, and securing subsidies that at times have made biofuel industries viable. The bioeconomy has continuously been a politically instituted market
(Pilgrim and Harvey 2010); thus, the state’s prime role has been to set up the
institutions that frame it.
Second, states have often gone beyond that and also taken a vital role in financing
biofuels development, such as through R&D funding and generous credit offer from
public banks. While the first function has been quite clear in all three case study countries, the second function is most evident in Brazil and India. Indonesia, in contrast,
seems more dependent on foreign financing from private actors and international
organizations (e.g., the World Bank).
Third, the state has also adopted a market role in those countries, engaging
directly in biofuel production chains through state-controlled fuel companies. Unlike
187
influence. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the outcomes have benefited exactly
the primary agents behind biofuel policy-making. This inference reinforces the point
that different strategy designs and outcomes are unlikely to come without a significant
shift within the state or more effective agency from those who are losing out.
8.3 Agency Patterns: State Reemergence Amid
Transnational Actors
8.3.1 Recovered Protagonism: Six Roles of a Prominent State
Although recent scholarship on governance for sustainable development—and particularly on agency—has focused extensively on non-state actors (see Biermann and
Pattberg 2012), this research shows that states have been central in bioeconomy
governance. State protagonism has happened both in the international and domestic
contexts, where they have played many roles. Public policies have been the main
driver of biofuel expansion. Governments have been vital agents seeking coordination with other actors, leading dominant coalitions, and pushing the agenda in all
three case studies. On the one hand, such a state-centered approach to development—
instead of more extensive reliance on an already well-established private sector—may
be a characteristic of emerging economies (Schmalz and Ebenau 2012). On the other
hand, it is useful to examine what issue-specific reasons may have induced that to
happen.
The state has played at least six crucial roles in the biofuel sectors of the examined
cases, which might gain even further prominence in emerging bioeconomy development. While some of those seem to be more usual government functions (e.g., setting
legal frameworks and regulations), others appear to be either new or reemerging functions that demonstrate a (re)conquest of governance space by the state after decades
of strong neoliberalization.
First, the state has performed an enabling role, i.e., in changing regulatory frameworks to allow for biofuel utilization, setting standard quality specifications, creating
blending mandates, and securing subsidies that at times have made biofuel industries viable. The bioeconomy has continuously been a politically instituted market
(Pilgrim and Harvey 2010); thus, the state’s prime role has been to set up the
institutions that frame it.
Second, states have often gone beyond that and also taken a vital role in financing
biofuels development, such as through R&D funding and generous credit offer from
public banks. While the first function has been quite clear in all three case study countries, the second function is most evident in Brazil and India. Indonesia, in contrast,
seems more dependent on foreign financing from private actors and international
organizations (e.g., the World Bank).
Third, the state has also adopted a market role in those countries, engaging
directly in biofuel production chains through state-controlled fuel companies. Unlike