9.2 Unraveling the Politics of Bioeconomy Governance
211
9.2.4 Strategic State Behavior and International
Non-regimes
Non-regime and non-governance cases remain as large blank spots in the governance
and institutional analysis literature (Biermann et al. 2009; Biermann and Kim 2020).
As Dimitrov et al. (2007) noted, regime analysis has focused extensively on policy
areas where regimes have surfaced. However, insufficient attention has been paid to
areas where no regimes have been formed, creating a lack of control cases. Moreover, non-regime cases can shed light on the political dynamics that underlie regime
formation. This section uses the case of biofuels—arguably a non-regime (Bastos
Lima and Gupta 2013)—to explain how such instances come to be and consider what
seems to prevent regime formation.
First, it is useful to observe that biofuels make a case where the literature would
have predicted international regime formation. The sector is marked by interdependence among countries, market failures, negative externalities from domestic
policies, and potential for mutual gains from multilateral cooperation—all of which
are factors known to contribute to regime formation (Keohane 1984; Young 1989;
Hasenclever et al. 1997; Dimitrov et al. 2007). Nevertheless, only a thin neoliberal framework has emerged in biofuel governance (Bastos Lima and Gupta 2013).
While it has provided some interstate cooperation, there are no mutually agreed rules
and, therefore, no rule-consistent behavior—defining requirements for a regime (see
Chap. 3).
In a preliminary assessment of non-regimes, Dimitrov et al. (2007) identified three
possible impediments to regime formation: the absence of reliable scientific information, value conflicts among states, or internal conflicts within domestic politics.
However, none of these factors seems to explain the absence of a biofuels regime satisfactorily. There has been plenty of scientific information on their economic or environmental impacts. Multilateral cooperation on biofuels shows that value conflicts
among states are not too significant in this area. Although there are conflicting views
on biofuels within countries, these have generally not been strong enough to undermine or destabilize the countries’ central positions and agendas on the issue, as the
case studies in this book have shown.
Instead, three other interrelated reasons may help explain the absence of an international regime in the case of biofuels: (i) strategic economic and geopolitical interests,
(ii) lack of political consensus
1 about the externalities of domestic policies, and (iii)
national sovereignty concerns. Countries engaged in large-scale biofuel production
have perceived it as central to their national energy security interests, geopolitical
ambitions, and job creation in agriculture—employment always a significant item
in government agendas. These domestic policies have likely had global impacts, but
they mix with other drivers, and thus the causality is not clear (see Bastos Lima
and Gupta 2014). This debate has led to nuanced views and a lack of consensus
among policy- and decision-makers, even if scientists and multilateral organizations
1 This does not refer to scientific consensus, but to consensus among policy- and decision-makers.
211
9.2.4 Strategic State Behavior and International
Non-regimes
Non-regime and non-governance cases remain as large blank spots in the governance
and institutional analysis literature (Biermann et al. 2009; Biermann and Kim 2020).
As Dimitrov et al. (2007) noted, regime analysis has focused extensively on policy
areas where regimes have surfaced. However, insufficient attention has been paid to
areas where no regimes have been formed, creating a lack of control cases. Moreover, non-regime cases can shed light on the political dynamics that underlie regime
formation. This section uses the case of biofuels—arguably a non-regime (Bastos
Lima and Gupta 2013)—to explain how such instances come to be and consider what
seems to prevent regime formation.
First, it is useful to observe that biofuels make a case where the literature would
have predicted international regime formation. The sector is marked by interdependence among countries, market failures, negative externalities from domestic
policies, and potential for mutual gains from multilateral cooperation—all of which
are factors known to contribute to regime formation (Keohane 1984; Young 1989;
Hasenclever et al. 1997; Dimitrov et al. 2007). Nevertheless, only a thin neoliberal framework has emerged in biofuel governance (Bastos Lima and Gupta 2013).
While it has provided some interstate cooperation, there are no mutually agreed rules
and, therefore, no rule-consistent behavior—defining requirements for a regime (see
Chap. 3).
In a preliminary assessment of non-regimes, Dimitrov et al. (2007) identified three
possible impediments to regime formation: the absence of reliable scientific information, value conflicts among states, or internal conflicts within domestic politics.
However, none of these factors seems to explain the absence of a biofuels regime satisfactorily. There has been plenty of scientific information on their economic or environmental impacts. Multilateral cooperation on biofuels shows that value conflicts
among states are not too significant in this area. Although there are conflicting views
on biofuels within countries, these have generally not been strong enough to undermine or destabilize the countries’ central positions and agendas on the issue, as the
case studies in this book have shown.
Instead, three other interrelated reasons may help explain the absence of an international regime in the case of biofuels: (i) strategic economic and geopolitical interests,
(ii) lack of political consensus
1 about the externalities of domestic policies, and (iii)
national sovereignty concerns. Countries engaged in large-scale biofuel production
have perceived it as central to their national energy security interests, geopolitical
ambitions, and job creation in agriculture—employment always a significant item
in government agendas. These domestic policies have likely had global impacts, but
they mix with other drivers, and thus the causality is not clear (see Bastos Lima
and Gupta 2014). This debate has led to nuanced views and a lack of consensus
among policy- and decision-makers, even if scientists and multilateral organizations
1 This does not refer to scientific consensus, but to consensus among policy- and decision-makers.