198
8 Bioeconomy Lessons from Biofuel Policies …
are unduly biased, emphasizing certain biophysical considerations (climate or forest
ones) while overlooking agrobiodiversity conservation, water use, and social issues.
8.5 Conclusions
This comparative assessment suggests that emerging economies show some
commonalities in their approach to biofuels promotion and bioeconomy development. For one, emerging economies have adopted a clear state-centric approach.
Generally, bioeconomy strategies and plans worldwide have been characteristically
public-sponsored and state-led, as shown clearly in the case of biofuels as these
enter the key domains of energy and agricultural governance. These sectors tend to
be considered strategic and are typically characterized by decisive state intervention domestically and little willingness to compromise at the international level (see
Florini and Sovacool 2009; Clapp 2006; Lesage et al. 2010). However, in emerging
economies, the state has been assuming an even broader set of roles, including
as a market actor through large state-controlled fuel companies and development
banks. This pattern contrasts with that of less developed countries, which tend not
to have such economic muscle or institutional capacity. It is also different from
that of highly industrialized countries, which have well-established private sectors
frequently playing those market roles—even if developed country states continue
to provide vital support. As emerging economies gain more international relevance
and influence over multilateral organizations’ agendas, these forms of state-centric
development may become more common, especially as financial and other economic
crises repeatedly undermine trust in market liberalism.
Emerging countries’ approach to the bioeconomy also has a more distinct focus
on social issues than on the biophysical ones (usually climate and wild biodiversity conservation) that highly industrialized countries tend to emphasize. In this
regard, emerging economies are similar to other developed countries (see MartínezAlier 2002). Yet, despite emphasis on socioeconomic development and lip service
paid to equity issues, their strategies to tackle social problems through biofuels
have by default been top-down and conservative, as a direct consequence of who
sets the agendas: coalitions of government and agribusiness agents, with little or no
participation of civil society. Rural development has been pursued primarily through
trickle-down economics, overlooking structural issues, and most often adopting a
paternalistic approach where the rural poor are referred to in policy discourses as
primary beneficiaries but do not participate in the policy-making process. The only
exception among the analyzed cases has been Brazil’s biodiesel policy in its early
years when rural social movements participated in its governance, though this sector,
too, later gave way to control by large conglomerates (soy and beef).
As such, emerging countries have used the bioeconomy to pursue equalizing development and bridge the North-South gap, but at the expense of increased domestic
inequities. Perhaps partly from their condition as emerging powers and an eagerness
to achieve a higher position in world affairs, these countries have characteristically
8 Bioeconomy Lessons from Biofuel Policies …
are unduly biased, emphasizing certain biophysical considerations (climate or forest
ones) while overlooking agrobiodiversity conservation, water use, and social issues.
8.5 Conclusions
This comparative assessment suggests that emerging economies show some
commonalities in their approach to biofuels promotion and bioeconomy development. For one, emerging economies have adopted a clear state-centric approach.
Generally, bioeconomy strategies and plans worldwide have been characteristically
public-sponsored and state-led, as shown clearly in the case of biofuels as these
enter the key domains of energy and agricultural governance. These sectors tend to
be considered strategic and are typically characterized by decisive state intervention domestically and little willingness to compromise at the international level (see
Florini and Sovacool 2009; Clapp 2006; Lesage et al. 2010). However, in emerging
economies, the state has been assuming an even broader set of roles, including
as a market actor through large state-controlled fuel companies and development
banks. This pattern contrasts with that of less developed countries, which tend not
to have such economic muscle or institutional capacity. It is also different from
that of highly industrialized countries, which have well-established private sectors
frequently playing those market roles—even if developed country states continue
to provide vital support. As emerging economies gain more international relevance
and influence over multilateral organizations’ agendas, these forms of state-centric
development may become more common, especially as financial and other economic
crises repeatedly undermine trust in market liberalism.
Emerging countries’ approach to the bioeconomy also has a more distinct focus
on social issues than on the biophysical ones (usually climate and wild biodiversity conservation) that highly industrialized countries tend to emphasize. In this
regard, emerging economies are similar to other developed countries (see MartínezAlier 2002). Yet, despite emphasis on socioeconomic development and lip service
paid to equity issues, their strategies to tackle social problems through biofuels
have by default been top-down and conservative, as a direct consequence of who
sets the agendas: coalitions of government and agribusiness agents, with little or no
participation of civil society. Rural development has been pursued primarily through
trickle-down economics, overlooking structural issues, and most often adopting a
paternalistic approach where the rural poor are referred to in policy discourses as
primary beneficiaries but do not participate in the policy-making process. The only
exception among the analyzed cases has been Brazil’s biodiesel policy in its early
years when rural social movements participated in its governance, though this sector,
too, later gave way to control by large conglomerates (soy and beef).
As such, emerging countries have used the bioeconomy to pursue equalizing development and bridge the North-South gap, but at the expense of increased domestic
inequities. Perhaps partly from their condition as emerging powers and an eagerness
to achieve a higher position in world affairs, these countries have characteristically