3.3 Analyzing Distributive Outcomes and Social Impacts
55
3.3 Analyzing Distributive Outcomes and Social Impacts
3.3.1 Allocation and Access as Proxies for Social Equity
Distributive policy and governance issues are treated under different denominations,
such as equity, fairness, or social justice (Biermann et al. 2009b, p. 59). They generally
include two objects of analysis: allocation and access. Allocation refers to distributing
material and immaterial benefits and burdens, such as natural resources, rights, or
responsibilities (Biermann et al. 2009b). Allocation is, therefore, essentially a relative
concept to compare the treatment dispensed to different actors. Access, in turn,
captures the absolute dimensions of social equity, such as access to resources to
allow “meeting the basic needs of humans to live a life of dignity” (Biermann et al.
2009b, p. 60; see also Chowdhury et al. 1992). However, this can also be analyzed in
relative terms by contrasting different actors’ levels of access. Moreover, access can
include other important material resources such as technology and finance, as well as
access to social processes such as systems of justice or policy- and decision-making
(Gupta and Lebel 2010). As some development agencies argue, the most chronic
form of poverty is often the “poverty of power” (UN ESCAP et al. 2007, p. 29),
which relates precisely to these immaterial forms of access.
From an analytical perspective, allocation patterns represent institutional
outcomes, i.e., effects on human activities. In contrast, the influence of these activities
on the ultimate conditions of access represents social impacts. As such, allocation is
not treated here as an afterward deed after basic needs have been met, as a matter of
“what to do with the rest” (see Gupta and Lebel 2010). Instead, allocation is considered a means through which access is maintained, reduced, or improved. Three core
dimensions would, therefore, be critical in an analysis of allocation and access in the
bioeconomy:
• The distributive outcomes and social impacts of bioeconomy governance and
production processes;
• The pathways and mechanisms through which allocation takes place, improving
or restraining access;
• Possibilities for reallocation, i.e., ways to redress perceived injustices and improve
access conditions through institutional redesign (see Biermann et al. 2009b, p. 61).
3.3.2 Insights from Agrarian Political Economy
Much of the environmental governance literature has traditionally focused on
common-pool resources (e.g., water, forests, ecospace; see Gupta and Lebel 2010).
The domains more closely related to the bioeconomy are a little different. Although
some view it as something potentially more holistic (Bugge et al. 2016), the bioeconomy arguably is primarily about produced resources. In such cases—as with
55
3.3 Analyzing Distributive Outcomes and Social Impacts
3.3.1 Allocation and Access as Proxies for Social Equity
Distributive policy and governance issues are treated under different denominations,
such as equity, fairness, or social justice (Biermann et al. 2009b, p. 59). They generally
include two objects of analysis: allocation and access. Allocation refers to distributing
material and immaterial benefits and burdens, such as natural resources, rights, or
responsibilities (Biermann et al. 2009b). Allocation is, therefore, essentially a relative
concept to compare the treatment dispensed to different actors. Access, in turn,
captures the absolute dimensions of social equity, such as access to resources to
allow “meeting the basic needs of humans to live a life of dignity” (Biermann et al.
2009b, p. 60; see also Chowdhury et al. 1992). However, this can also be analyzed in
relative terms by contrasting different actors’ levels of access. Moreover, access can
include other important material resources such as technology and finance, as well as
access to social processes such as systems of justice or policy- and decision-making
(Gupta and Lebel 2010). As some development agencies argue, the most chronic
form of poverty is often the “poverty of power” (UN ESCAP et al. 2007, p. 29),
which relates precisely to these immaterial forms of access.
From an analytical perspective, allocation patterns represent institutional
outcomes, i.e., effects on human activities. In contrast, the influence of these activities
on the ultimate conditions of access represents social impacts. As such, allocation is
not treated here as an afterward deed after basic needs have been met, as a matter of
“what to do with the rest” (see Gupta and Lebel 2010). Instead, allocation is considered a means through which access is maintained, reduced, or improved. Three core
dimensions would, therefore, be critical in an analysis of allocation and access in the
bioeconomy:
• The distributive outcomes and social impacts of bioeconomy governance and
production processes;
• The pathways and mechanisms through which allocation takes place, improving
or restraining access;
• Possibilities for reallocation, i.e., ways to redress perceived injustices and improve
access conditions through institutional redesign (see Biermann et al. 2009b, p. 61).
3.3.2 Insights from Agrarian Political Economy
Much of the environmental governance literature has traditionally focused on
common-pool resources (e.g., water, forests, ecospace; see Gupta and Lebel 2010).
The domains more closely related to the bioeconomy are a little different. Although
some view it as something potentially more holistic (Bugge et al. 2016), the bioeconomy arguably is primarily about produced resources. In such cases—as with