1.4 A Focus on Emerging Democracies
13
2020). Regardless, their political ascension in an increasingly multipolar world has
continually made the G20 a new key forum for world leaders (Cammack 2012).
Overall, there is a clear realization that contemporary processes of global environmental, socio-economic, and political change can no longer be sufficiently understood or addressed without reference to emerging countries (Hurrell and Sengupta
2012).
Three emerging economies are taken as in-depth case studies in this book: Brazil,
India, and Indonesia. All three are major agricultural countries that have de facto
embraced the bioeconomy and pursued the quick adoption of biofuels on a large
scale. Sometimes, their feedstock-crop choices have even been similar—in some
cases, identical. They all have targeted sugarcane as the primary ethanol feedstock
and attempted to produce biodiesel from non-edible oilseeds (castor bean in Brazil,
jatropha in India and Indonesia). The crops being more or less the same, there
has been more room for analyzing other variables such as their particular policy
frameworks and production strategies. All three countries have also experienced
rapid economic development in recent decades while still facing severe poverty and
inequality. Inquiries on distributive issues, therefore, become most relevant. That is
especially true in the case of bioeconomy, as the production of biofuels and bioproducts increases the competition for key resources that remain inaccessible to significant
parts of the population, such as water and food (see Table 1.1).
As emerging democracies, Brazil, India and Indonesia also offer novel contexts
for the analysis of bioeconomy politics. They have been far less studied than developed countries in terms of bioeconomy governance or overall sustainability politics.
Moreover, being functional—if imperfect—democracies, they are likely to experience more meaningful competition among different views and actors than in more
authoritarian emerging countries such as Russia or China.
At the international level, too, North-South issues of the bioeconomy or particular
to biofuel expansion have been studied almost exclusively concerning the global
impacts of developed-country policies (e.g., Dauvergne and Neville 2009; Smith
2010). This book is amongst the first efforts to comparatively discuss the internal
bioeconomy politics of various developing countries, regarding them as actors and
global agents, not merely subjects of what developed countries decide to do. This
investigation may also help understand whether emerging economies follow a pattern
regarding bioeconomy sectors such as biofuels or sustainability more generally—
and, if yes, what that pattern looks like.
The book applies a comparative case study methodology for this assessment.
Case studies are useful empirical inquiries on complex and contemporary real-world
contexts, serving both exploratory and explanatory purposes (Yin 2003). Each has
relied on multiple sources of evidence and data-collection methods that are then crosschecked—or “triangulated”—to draw inferences. Four main sources of evidence have
been used for this study: the scientific and grey literature on the specific countries;
primary documents such as laws, policies, and company memos; key-informant interviews with a total of 104 policy-makers, NGOs, researchers, industry representatives,
farmers and grassroots organizations in the three countries; and direct observations
13
2020). Regardless, their political ascension in an increasingly multipolar world has
continually made the G20 a new key forum for world leaders (Cammack 2012).
Overall, there is a clear realization that contemporary processes of global environmental, socio-economic, and political change can no longer be sufficiently understood or addressed without reference to emerging countries (Hurrell and Sengupta
2012).
Three emerging economies are taken as in-depth case studies in this book: Brazil,
India, and Indonesia. All three are major agricultural countries that have de facto
embraced the bioeconomy and pursued the quick adoption of biofuels on a large
scale. Sometimes, their feedstock-crop choices have even been similar—in some
cases, identical. They all have targeted sugarcane as the primary ethanol feedstock
and attempted to produce biodiesel from non-edible oilseeds (castor bean in Brazil,
jatropha in India and Indonesia). The crops being more or less the same, there
has been more room for analyzing other variables such as their particular policy
frameworks and production strategies. All three countries have also experienced
rapid economic development in recent decades while still facing severe poverty and
inequality. Inquiries on distributive issues, therefore, become most relevant. That is
especially true in the case of bioeconomy, as the production of biofuels and bioproducts increases the competition for key resources that remain inaccessible to significant
parts of the population, such as water and food (see Table 1.1).
As emerging democracies, Brazil, India and Indonesia also offer novel contexts
for the analysis of bioeconomy politics. They have been far less studied than developed countries in terms of bioeconomy governance or overall sustainability politics.
Moreover, being functional—if imperfect—democracies, they are likely to experience more meaningful competition among different views and actors than in more
authoritarian emerging countries such as Russia or China.
At the international level, too, North-South issues of the bioeconomy or particular
to biofuel expansion have been studied almost exclusively concerning the global
impacts of developed-country policies (e.g., Dauvergne and Neville 2009; Smith
2010). This book is amongst the first efforts to comparatively discuss the internal
bioeconomy politics of various developing countries, regarding them as actors and
global agents, not merely subjects of what developed countries decide to do. This
investigation may also help understand whether emerging economies follow a pattern
regarding bioeconomy sectors such as biofuels or sustainability more generally—
and, if yes, what that pattern looks like.
The book applies a comparative case study methodology for this assessment.
Case studies are useful empirical inquiries on complex and contemporary real-world
contexts, serving both exploratory and explanatory purposes (Yin 2003). Each has
relied on multiple sources of evidence and data-collection methods that are then crosschecked—or “triangulated”—to draw inferences. Four main sources of evidence have
been used for this study: the scientific and grey literature on the specific countries;
primary documents such as laws, policies, and company memos; key-informant interviews with a total of 104 policy-makers, NGOs, researchers, industry representatives,
farmers and grassroots organizations in the three countries; and direct observations