Transformative change and policy-making: the case of bioeconomy policies in the EU frontrunners and lessons for latecomers

References

• The Austrian Federal Government. 2019. Bioeconomy: A Strategy for Austria. [In German]. March 2019. Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism, Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology, and Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research. https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/en/Topics/Research/Research-in-Austria/Strategic-focus-and-advisory-bodies/Strategies/Bioeconomy-Strategy.html.
   Google Scholar
• Bahn-Walkowiak, B., and H. Wilts. 2017. “The Institutional Dimension of Resource Efficiency in a Multi-Level Governance System – Implications for Policy Mix Design.” Energy Research & Social Science 33: 163–172. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, J., L. Paula, T. Dodd, S. Nemeth, C. Nanou, V. Mega, and P. Campos. 2018. “EU Ambition to Build the World's Leading Bioeconomy – Uncertain Times Demand Innovative and Sustainable Solutions.” New Biotechnology 40: 25–30. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2017.06.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böcher, M., A. E. Töller, D. Perbandt, K. Beer, and T. Vogelpohl. 2020. “Research Trends: Bioeconomy Politics and Governance.” Forest Policy and Economics 118: 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosman, R., and J. Rotmans. 2016. “Transition Governance Towards a Bioeconomy: A Comparison of Finland and the Netherlands.” Sustainability 8 (10): 1–20. doi:10.3390/su8101017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen, G. A. 2009. “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method.” Qualitative Research Journal 9 (2): 27–40. doi:10.3316/QRJ0902027.
   Google Scholar
• Breznitz, D., and D. Ornston. 2016. “The Politics of Partial Success: Fostering Innovation in Innovation Policy in an Era of Heightened Public Scrutiny.” Socio-Economic Review 16 (4): 721–741. doi:10.1093/ser/mww018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casula, M., N. Rangarajan, and P. Shields. 2020. “The Potential of Working Hypotheses for Deductive Exploratory Research.” Quality & Quantity. doi:10.1007/s11135-020-01072-9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chaminade, C., and C. Edquist. 2006. “Rationales for Public Policy Intervention from a Systems of Innovation Approach: The Case of VINNOVA.” CIRCLE Electronic Working Paper Series 04: 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Cingiz, K., H. Gonzalez-Hermoso, W. Heijman, and J. H. Wesseler. 2021. “A Cross-Country Measurement of the EU Bioeconomy: An Input–Output Approach.” Sustainability 13 (6): 1–39. doi:10.3390/su13063033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Danish Government. 2013. The Danish Government Plan for Growth for Water, Bio & Environmental Solutions. [Summary in English]. March 2013. https://eng.em.dk/media/10603/12-03-13-summary-plan-for-growth-for-water-bio-etc.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• The Danish National Bioeconomy Panel. 2014. Denmark as Growth Hub for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Statement by the National Bioeconomy Panel. September 2014. https://naturerhverv.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/NaturErhverv/Filer/Indsatsomraader/Biooekonomi/Denmark_as_growth_hub_for_a_sustainable_bioeconomy_statement_by_the_Danish_Bioeconomy_Panel.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• The Danish National Bioeconomy Panel. 2018. Recommendations from the National Bioeconomy Panel: Proteins for the Future. June 2018. https://mfvm.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/MFVM/Miljoe/Biooekonomi/Recommendations_from_the_National_Bioeconomy_Panel_Proteins_for_the_future__PDF_.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• The Danish Parties’ Agreement. 2009. Danish Agreement on Green Growth. June 2009. https://eng.mst.dk/media/mst/69152/Danish%20Agreement%20on%20Green%20Growth_300909.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, S., L. Griestop, H. Vironen, J. Bachtler, V. Dozhdeva, and R. Michie. 2016. Case Studies of National Bioeconomy Strategies in Finland and Germany. The Report of the Research Project BioSTEP.
   Google Scholar
• della Porta, D. 2008. “Comparative Analysis: Case-Oriented Versus Variable-Oriented Research.” In Approaches and Methodologies Inthe Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, edited by D. della Porta, and M. Keating, 198–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• della Porta, D., and M. Keating. 2008. “How Many Approaches in the Social Sciences? An Epistemological Introduction.” In Approaches and Methodologies Inthe Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, edited by D. della Porta, and M. Keating, 198–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Devaney, L. A., and M. Henchion. 2016. BioÉire Delphi Results Report. https://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2017/bioeire-results-launch.php.
   Google Scholar
• Devaney, L. A., and M. Henchion. 2017. “If Opportunity Doesn't Knock, Build a Door: Reflecting on a Bioeconomy Policy Agenda for Ireland.” The Economic and Social Review 48 (2): 207–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz, T., J. Borner, J. J. Forster, and J. von Braun. 2018. “Governance of the Bioeconomy: A Global Comparative Study of National Bioeconomy Strategies.” Sustainability 10 (9): 1–20. doi:10.3390/su10093190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domenech, T., and B. Bahn-Walkowiak. 2019. “Transition Towards a Resource Efficient Circular Economy in Europe: Policy Lessons from the EU and the Member States.” Ecological Economics 155: 7–19. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EC (European Commission) Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy. 2021. Strategies and Other Policy Initiatives Dedicated to the Bioeconomy. Accessed February 27, 2021. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/visualisation/bioeconomy-different-countries_en.
   Google Scholar
• EEA (European Environmental Agency). 2019. Sustainability Transitions: Policy and Practice. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• EIO (Eco-Innovation Observatory). 2017a. EIO Country Profile 2016-2017: Austria. Coordinator of the work package: Technopolis Group. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/austria_en.
   Google Scholar
• EIO (Eco-Innovation Observatory). 2017b. EIO Country Profile 2016-2017: Denmark. Coordinator of the work package: Technopolis Group. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/denmark_en.
   Google Scholar
• EIO (Eco-Innovation Observatory). 2017c. EIO Country Profile 2016-2017: Finland. Coordinator of the work package: Technopolis Group. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/finland_en.
   Google Scholar
• EIO (Eco-Innovation Observatory). 2017d. EIO Country Profile 2016-2017: Ireland. Coordinator of the work package: Technopolis Group. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/ireland_en.
   Google Scholar
• EIO (Eco-Innovation Observatory). 2017e. EIO Country Profile 2016-2017: Sweden. Coordinator of the work package: Technopolis Group. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/sweden_en.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2012. Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2012) 60 final.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2018. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the Connection between Economy, Society and the Environment. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2012) 60 final.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2019. The European Green Deal. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2019) 640 Final.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. 2020a. “Environmental Economy – Statistics by Member States.” Statistics Explained. Accessed October 30, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/10420.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. 2020b. “Resource Productivity Statistics.” Accessed October 30, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Resource_productivity_statistics#Resource_productivity_of_the_EU-27_and_across_Member_States_over_time.
   Google Scholar
• The Finnish Government. 2014. Sustainable Growth from Bioeconomy: The Finnish Bioeconomy Strategy. May 2014. http://www.bioeconomy.fi/facts-and-contacts/finnish-bioeconomy-strategy/.
   Google Scholar
• The Finnish Government. 2019. “Programme of Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s Government 10 December 2019: Inclusive and Competent Finland – A Socially, Economically and Ecologically Sustainable Society.” Publications of the Finnish Government 33. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161935/VN_2019_33.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, K., T. Stenius, and S. Holmgren. 2020. “Swedish Forests in the Bioeconomy: Stories from the National Forest Program.” Society & Natural Resources 33 (7): 896–913. doi:10.1080/08941920.2020.1725202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2): 219–245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FORMAS (Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development). 2012. Swedish RDI Strategy for a Biobased Economy. March 2012. http://www.formas.se/PageFiles/5074/Strategy_Biobased_Ekonomy_hela.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ganglberger, E., and T. Sturm. 2014. Austrian RDI Strategy for a Biobased Economy. [In German]. September 2014. Wien: ÖGUT and Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology. https://nachhaltigwirtschaften.at/resources/fdz_pdf/1438_fti_strategie_biobasierte_industrie.pdf?m=1469660368.
   Google Scholar
• German Bioeconomy Council. 2015a. Bioeconomy Policy (Part I): Synopsis and Analysis of Strategies in the G7. Berlin: Office of the Bioeconomy Council.
   Google Scholar
• German Bioeconomy Council. 2015b. Bioeconomy Policy (Part II): Synopsis of National Strategies around the World. Berlin: Office of the Bioeconomy Council.
   Google Scholar
• German Bioeconomy Council. 2018. Bioeconomy Policy (Part III): Update Report of National Strategies around the World. Berlin: Office of the Bioeconomy Council.
   Google Scholar
• Goven, J., and V. Pavone. 2015. “The Bioeconomy as Political Project: A Polanyian Analysis.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 40 (3): 302–337. doi:10.1177/0162243914552133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grillitsch, M., T. Hansen, L. Coenen, J. Miorner, and J. Moodysson. 2019. “Innovation Policy for System-Wide Transformation: The Case of Strategic Innovation Programmes (SIPs) in Sweden.” Research Policy 48 (4): 1048–1061. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausknost, D., E. Schriefl, C. Lauk, and G. Kalt. 2017. “A Transition to Which Bioeconomy? An Exploration of Diverging Techno-Political Choices.” Sustainability 9 (4): 1–22. doi:10.3390/su9040669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imbert, E., L. Ladu, P. Morone, and R. Quitzow. 2017. “Comparing Policy Strategies for a Transition to a Bioeconomy in Europe: The Case of Italy and Germany.” Energy Research & Social Science 33: 70–81. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.08.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Irish Government. 2018. National Policy Statement on the Bioeconomy. February 2018. https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/e551fa-the-bioeconomy/.
   Google Scholar
• The Irish Government. 2019. Bioeconomy Implementation Group: The First Progress Report. Prepared by the Department of Communication, Climate Action & Environment and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on behalf of the Bioeconomy Implementation Group. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/87110-bioeconomy-implementation-groups-first-progress-report/.
   Google Scholar
• Izsak, K., P. Markianidou, and S. Radosevic. 2015. “Convergence of National Innovation Policy Mixes in Europe – Has It Gone Too Far? An Analysis of Research and Innovation Policy Measures in the Period 2004–12.” Journal of Common Market Studies 53 (4): 786–802. doi:10.1111/jcms.12221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnstone, P., and P. Newell. 2018. “Sustainability Transitions and the State.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 27: 72–82. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juuse, E. 2016. “The Real Sector Developments in Estonia: Financialisation Effects Behind the Transition Process.” In Financialisation and the Financial and Economic Crises: Country Studies, edited by E. Hein, D. Detzer, and N. Dodig, 137–162. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Karo, E. 2018. “Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies and Bureaucracies in East Asia.” Industrial and Corporate Change 27 (5): 867–881. doi:10.1093/icc/dty031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karo, E., and R. Kattel. 2010. “The Copying Paradox: Why Converging Policies but Diverging Capacities in Eastern European Innovation Systems?” The International Journal of Institutions and Economies 2 (2): 167–206.
   Google Scholar
• Karo, E., and R. Kattel. 2015. “Economic Development and Evolving State Capacities in Central and Eastern Europe: Can “Smart Specialization” Make a Difference?.” Journal of Economic Policy Reform 18 (2): 172–187. doi:10.1080/17487870.2015.1009068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karo, E., and R. Kattel. 2016. “How to Organize for Innovation: Entrepreneurial State and Organizational Variety.” Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics 66: 1–39.
   Google Scholar
• Karo, E., R. Kattel, and A. Cepilovs. 2017. “Can Smart Specialization and Entrepreneurial Discovery be Organized by Government? Lessons from Central and Eastern Europe.” In Advances in the Theory and Practice of Smart Specialization, edited by S. Radosevic, A. Curaj, L. Andreescu, R. Gheorghiu, and I. Wade, 269–292. London: Elsevier Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Karo, E., and L. Looga. 2016. “Understanding Institutional Changes in Economic Restructuring and Innovation Policies in Slovenia and Estonia.” Journal of International Relations and Development 19: 500–533. doi:10.1057/jird.2014.23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelleher, L., M. Henchion, and E. O'Neill. 2019. “Policy Coherence and the Transition to a Bioeconomy: The Case of Ireland.” Sustainability 11 (24): 1–25. doi:10.3390/su11247247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kivimaa, P., and F. Kern. 2016. “Creative Destruction or Mere Niche Support? Innovation Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions.” Research Policy 45 (1): 205–217. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhler, J., F. W. Geels, F. Kern, J. Markard, E. Onsongo, A. Wieczorek, F. Alkemade, F. Avelino, A. Bergek, and F. Boons. 2019. “An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of the Art and Future Directions.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31: 1–32. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korhonen, J., A. Giurca, M. Brockhaus, and A. Toppinen. 2018. “Actors and Politics in Finland’s Forest-Based Bioeconomy Network.” Sustainability 10 (10): 1–20. doi:10.3390/su10103785.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhlmann, S., and A. Rip. 2018. “Next-Generation Innovation Policy and Grand Challenges.” Science and Public Policy 45 (4): 448–454. doi:10.1093/scipol/scy011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langeveld, J. W. A., K. P. H. Meesters, and M. S. Breure. 2016. The Biobased Economy and the Bioeconomy in the Netherlands. Utrecht: The Biomass Research Report.
   Google Scholar
• LUKE (Natural Resources Institute Finland). 2018. “The Potential of The Finnish Arctic Bioeconomy Depends on Entrepreneurial Spirit and Cooperation.” Policy Brief 3: 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Mazzucato, M. 2013. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. London: Anthem Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCormick, K., and N. Kautto. 2013. “The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview.” Sustainability 5 (6): 2589–2608. doi:10.3390/su5062589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, R. 2017. “Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates.” Sustainability 9 (6): 1–32. doi:10.3390/su9061031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 2018. “Competitive Advantage from Clean Food and Responsible Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: Futures Review of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.” Finnish Government Publication Series 32: 1–36.
   Google Scholar
• The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. 2018. The Position of the Bioeconomy in the Netherlands. April 2018. https://www.government.nl/documents/leaflets/2018/04/01/the-position-of-the-bioeconomy-in-the-netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• The Ministry of Employment and the Economy. 2011. “Building an Intelligent and Responsible Natural Resource Economy: Natural Resources Report Submitted to Parliament by the Finnish Government.” Publications of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, Energy and the Climate 5: 1–71. https://tem.fi/documents/1410877/3437250/Building+an+Intelligent+and+Responsible+Natural+Resource+Economy+24022011.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• The Ministry of the Environment. 2013. “The Swedish Environmental Objectives System.” Information Sheet. Government Offices of Sweden. https://www.regeringen.se/49bbb6/contentassets/179e266882ad451f9bbe28160c7e348f/the-swedish-environmental-objectives-system-m2013.01.
   Google Scholar
• The National Audit Office. 2018. Preparation of the Finnish Bioeconomy Strategy: Conclusions and Recommendations of the National Audit Office. https://www.vtv.fi/en/publications/preparation-of-the-finnish-bioeconomy-strategy.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009. The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda: Main Findings and Policy Conclusions. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264056886-en.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2015. System Innovation Synthesis Report. The OECD Project on System Innovation Undertaken in the Framework of the Activities of the OECD Working Party on Technology and Innovation Policy (TIP). https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/system-innovation-oecd-project/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2018. Meeting Policy Challenges for a Sustainable Bioeconomy. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264292345-en.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2019. “Innovation Ecosystems in the Bioeconomy.” OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 76: 1–74. doi:10.1787/e2e3d8a1-en.
   Google Scholar
• Patermann, C., and A. Aguilar. 2018. “The Origins of the Bioeconomy in the European Union.” New Biotechnology 40: 20–24. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2017.04.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priefer, C., J. Jörissen, and O. Frör. 2017. “Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy.” Resources 6 (1): 1–23. doi:10.3390/resources6010010.
   Google Scholar
• Purkus, A., N. Hagemann, N. Bedtke, and E. Gawel. 2018. “Towards a Sustainable Innovation System for the German Wood-Based Bioeconomy: Implications for Policy Design.” Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (20): 3955–3968. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.146.
   Google Scholar
• Radosevic, S. 2017. “Upgrading Technology in Central and Eastern European Economies: Existing Policies in Eastern Europe Will not Sufficiently Promote Technological Innovation.” IZA World of Labor Feb 338: 1–11. doi:10.15185/izawol.338.
   Google Scholar
• Radosevic, S., and K. C. Stancova. 2015. “External Dimensions of Smart Specialization: Opportunities and Challenges for Trans-Regional and Transnational Collaboration in the EU-13.” S3 Working Paper Series 9: 1–46.
   Google Scholar
• Ramcilovic-Suominen, S., and H. Pülzl. 2018. “Sustainable Development – A‘Selling Point’of the Emerging EU Bioeconomy Policy Framework?” Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 4170–4180. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reime, M., R. Røste, A. Almasi, and L. Coenen. 2016. The Circular Bioeconomy in Scandinavia. Oslo: The Report of the Research Project SusValueWaste. http://www.susvaluewaste.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SusValueWaste-2016-The-circular-bioeconomy-in-Scandinavia.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• RIO (Research and Innovation Observatory). 2017. RIO Country Report: Finland. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• RIO (Research and Innovation Observatory). 2018. RIO Country Report: Sweden. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Robert, N., J. Giuntoli, R. Araujo, M. Avraamides, E. Balzi, J. I. Barredo, B. Baruth, et al. 2020. “Development of a Bioeconomy Monitoring Framework for the European Union: An Integrative and Collaborative Approach.” New Biotechnology 59 (25): 10–19. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2020.06.001.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rogge, K. S., and K. Reichardt. 2016. “Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions: An Extended Concept and Framework for Analysis.” Research Policy 45 (8): 132–147. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnlund, I., T. Pursula, M. Bröckl, L. Hakala, P. Luoma, M. Aho, A. Pathan, and B. E. Pallesen. 2014. Creating Value from Bioresources: Innovation in Nordic Bioeconomy. Oslo: Nordic Innovation Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ronzon, R., and R. M’Barek. 2018. “Socioeconomic Indicators to Monitor the EU’s Bioeconomy in Transition.” Sustainability 10 (6): 1–22. doi:10.3390/su10061745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schot, J., and W. E. Steinmueller. 2018. “Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of Innovation and Transformative Change.” Research Policy 47 (9): 1554–1567. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scordato, L., M. Bugge, and A. M. Fevolden. 2019. “Directionality and Diversity: Contending Policy Rationales in the Transition Towards the Bioeconomy.” In From Waste to Value: Valorisation Pathways for Organic Waste Streams in Circular Bioeconomies, edited by A. Klitkou, A. M. Fevolden, and M. Capasso, 233–252. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Shields, P. M. 1998. “Pragmatism as Philosophy of Science: A Tool for Public Administration.” In Research in Public Administration, edited by J. D. White, 195–225. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• SITRA (Finnish Innovation Fund). 2009. A Natural Resource Strategy for Finland: Using Natural Resources Intelligently. April 2009. https://media.sitra.fi/2017/02/28142047/A20Natural20Resource20Strategy20for20Finland.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• SITRA (Finnish Innovation Fund). 2011. Distributed Bio-Based Economy: Driving Sustainable Growth. 1st ed. Helsinki: Sitra the Finnish Innovation Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Staffas, L., M. Gustavsson, and K. McCormick. 2013. “Strategies and Policies for the Bioeconomy and Bio-Based Economy: An Analysis of Official National Approaches.” Sustainability 5 (6): 2751–2769. doi:10.3390/su5062751.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suurna, M., and R. Kattel. 2010. “Europeanization of Innovation Policy in Central and Eastern Europe.” Science and Public Policy 37 (9): 646–664. doi:10.3152/030234210x12778118264459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TEAGASC. 2016. Teagasc Technology Foresight 2035: Technology Transforming Irish Agri-Food and Bioeconomy. Final Report. March 2016. https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2016/Teagasc-Technology-Foresight-Report-2035.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• TEAGASC (Agriculture and Food Development Authority). 2008. Teagasc Foresight Report: Teagasc's Role in Transforming Ireland's Agri-Food Sector and the Wider Bioeconomy Towards 2030. May 2008. https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2000/ForesightReportVol1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, K. M., and H. Rohracher. 2012. “Legitimizing Research, Technology and Innovation Policies for Transformative Change: Combining Insights from Innovation Systems and Multi-Level Perspective in a Comprehensive ‘Failures’ Framework.” Research Policy 41 (6): 1037–1047. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wieczorek, A. J. 2018. “Sustainability Transitions in Developing Countries: Major Insights and Their Implications for Research and Policy.” Environmental Science & Policy 84: 204–216. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkel, G. 2017. Towards a Sustainable European Forest-Based Bioeconomy: Assessment and the Way Forward. Joensuu: European Forest Institute (EFI).
   Google Scholar
• Wiseman, J., T. Edwards, and K. Luckins. 2013. “Post Carbon Pathways Towards a Just and Resilient Post Carbon Future: Learning from Leading International Post-Carbon Economy Researchers and Policy Makers.” CPD Discussion Paper April 2013: 1−52. http://cpd.org.au/2013/04/post-carbon-pathways.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Designs and Method. 3rd ed. California: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar