216
9 The Politics for a Fairer Bioeconomy
of biofuel production). Long feedback loops also work through discursive strategies to sway public opinion and retain governmental support in democracies, such
as framing the expansion of large-scale feedstock monocultures as serving national
interests.
The conclusion is that prevailing institutions not only reflect the preferences and
policy beliefs of dominant actors. They also create a self-reinforcing system involving
inequitable distribution, uneven power relations, and biased institutions designed to
perpetuate such inequity ad aeternum. At least until external factors or transformative
innovations break the loops. However, these transformative institutional innovations
have been scarce in bioeconomy value webs, as the sector so far has concerned itself
mostly with technical improvements (Sanz-Hernández et al. 2019).
In the emerging economies analyzed, the multi-layered explanation of why unsustainable biofuel production patterns have prevailed can thus be synthesized as the
following. The main culprit has been domestic public policies underpinned by two
fundamental biases: (i) a bias towards urban-centered development, and (ii) norms
that fail to account for social equity or environmental concerns other than climate
change mitigation and wild biodiversity conservation. In turn, these institutions
result from the superior agency of powerful private actors (notably agribusiness)
who benefit from the status quo and from the dominance of state actors who prioritize (international) equalizing development over domestic equity promotion or environmental protection. This prioritization should not be simplistically regarded as
the pursuit of economic growth or “development.” Rather, it emerges from clusters of economic and political ambitions of historically disadvantaged countries in
an unequal international context. These ambitions also include promoting endogenous technological innovation, reducing vulnerability to price shocks and undue
foreign control, and gaining greater geopolitical influence. However, for that, states
have frequently depended on private agribusiness to provide financial, technological,
and production capacity to attain those goals. Thus, biofuel production in emerging
economies helps bridge the gap that separates them from developed countries, but
unsustainably and with a great deal of elite capture. Without intervention, this is
likely to remain unchanged in any further bioeconomy development.
9.2.7 Implications for Bioeconomy Promotion
Bioeconomy strategies are likely to become increasingly prevalent. While biofuels
may be just a stepping-stone towards more advanced renewable energy technologies,
a transition towards multipurpose agriculture and the development of biomass-based
industrial sectors arguably are here to stay (Bastos Lima 2018). Biofuel policies and
production, therefore, are all the more critical as they establish the basis and create
path dependencies for all future bioeconomy development.
The experience with biofuels shows that not only environmental change but also
the strategies devised to address this change produce unequal outcomes with clear
9 The Politics for a Fairer Bioeconomy
of biofuel production). Long feedback loops also work through discursive strategies to sway public opinion and retain governmental support in democracies, such
as framing the expansion of large-scale feedstock monocultures as serving national
interests.
The conclusion is that prevailing institutions not only reflect the preferences and
policy beliefs of dominant actors. They also create a self-reinforcing system involving
inequitable distribution, uneven power relations, and biased institutions designed to
perpetuate such inequity ad aeternum. At least until external factors or transformative
innovations break the loops. However, these transformative institutional innovations
have been scarce in bioeconomy value webs, as the sector so far has concerned itself
mostly with technical improvements (Sanz-Hernández et al. 2019).
In the emerging economies analyzed, the multi-layered explanation of why unsustainable biofuel production patterns have prevailed can thus be synthesized as the
following. The main culprit has been domestic public policies underpinned by two
fundamental biases: (i) a bias towards urban-centered development, and (ii) norms
that fail to account for social equity or environmental concerns other than climate
change mitigation and wild biodiversity conservation. In turn, these institutions
result from the superior agency of powerful private actors (notably agribusiness)
who benefit from the status quo and from the dominance of state actors who prioritize (international) equalizing development over domestic equity promotion or environmental protection. This prioritization should not be simplistically regarded as
the pursuit of economic growth or “development.” Rather, it emerges from clusters of economic and political ambitions of historically disadvantaged countries in
an unequal international context. These ambitions also include promoting endogenous technological innovation, reducing vulnerability to price shocks and undue
foreign control, and gaining greater geopolitical influence. However, for that, states
have frequently depended on private agribusiness to provide financial, technological,
and production capacity to attain those goals. Thus, biofuel production in emerging
economies helps bridge the gap that separates them from developed countries, but
unsustainably and with a great deal of elite capture. Without intervention, this is
likely to remain unchanged in any further bioeconomy development.
9.2.7 Implications for Bioeconomy Promotion
Bioeconomy strategies are likely to become increasingly prevalent. While biofuels
may be just a stepping-stone towards more advanced renewable energy technologies,
a transition towards multipurpose agriculture and the development of biomass-based
industrial sectors arguably are here to stay (Bastos Lima 2018). Biofuel policies and
production, therefore, are all the more critical as they establish the basis and create
path dependencies for all future bioeconomy development.
The experience with biofuels shows that not only environmental change but also
the strategies devised to address this change produce unequal outcomes with clear