What does an inclusive bioeconomy mean for primary producers? An analysis of European bioeconomy strategies

References

• Baker, S. (2016). The concept of sustainable development. In Sustainable Development (2nd ed., pp. 21–66). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bastos Lima, M. G. (2021). The politics for a fairer bioeconomy. In The politics of bioeconomy and sustainability (pp. 203–227). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66838-9
   Google Scholar
• Bioökonomierat. (2014). Positionen und Strategien des Bioökonomierates.
   Google Scholar
• Birch, K., Levidow, L., & Papaioannou, T. (2010). Sustainable capital? The neoliberalization of nature and knowledge in the European “knowledge-based bio-economy.”. Sustainability, 2(9), 2898–2918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092898
   Google Scholar
• Blei, D., Carin, L., & Dunson, D. (2012). Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2010.938079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & Van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Qualitative Research in psychology using thematic analysis in psychology using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Bryden, J., Gezelius, S. S., Refsgaard, K., & Sutz, J. (2017). Inclusive innovation in the bioeconomy: Concepts and directions for research. Innovation and Development, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2017.1281209
   Google Scholar
• Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, & Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. (2020). National Bioeconomy Strategy.
   Google Scholar
• Carlsson, R., & Nilholm, C. (2004). Demokrati och inkludering – en begreppsdiskussion. UTBILDNING & DEMOKRATI, 13(2), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.48059/uod.v13i2.774
   Google Scholar
• Carter, B. (2015). Benefits to society of an inclusive societies approach. In GSDRC Applied Knowledge Services.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, X., Zou, D., Cheng, G., & Xie, H. (2020). Detecting latent topics and trends in educational technologies over four decades using structural topic modeling: A retrospective of all volumes of computers & education. Computers and Education, 151(February), 103855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103855
   Google Scholar
• D’Amato, D., Droste, N., Allen, B., Kettunen, M., Lähtinen, K., Korhonen, J., Leskinen, P., Matthies, B. D., & Toppinen, A. (2017). Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 716–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, E. (2017). Social justice and out-of-school science learning: Exploring equity in science television, science clubs and maker spaces. Science Education, 101(4), 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz, T., Börner, J., Förster, J. J., & von Braun, J. (2018). Governance of the bioeconomy: A global comparative study of national bioeconomy strategies. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(9), https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093190
   Google Scholar
• Eames, M., McDowall, W., Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2006). Negotiating contested visions and place-specific expectations of the hydrogen economy. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Bioeconomy Stakeholders Panel. (2017). European Bioeconomy Stakeholders Manifesto. November.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2010). EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2011). Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2012). Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the document Communication on Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2017). Expert Group Report: Review of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy and its Action Plan Chair.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2018a). A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment {SWD(2018) 431 final}.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2018b). Commission Staff Working Document. Accompanying the document A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment {COM(2018) 673 final}.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission Joint Reseach Centre. (2017). Bioeconomy Report 2016. In JRC Science for Policy Report. https://doi.org/10.2760/20166
   Google Scholar
• European Council. (2000). Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000 Presidency Conclusions.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. (2014). National Policy Strategy on Bioeconomy.
   Google Scholar
• Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunderson, R., Stuart, D., & Petersen, B. (2020). Materialized ideology and environmental problems: The cases of solar geoengineering and agricultural biotechnology. European Journal of Social Theory, 23(3), 389–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431019839252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, J., Pouw, N. R. M., & Ros-Tonen, M. A. F. (2015). Towards an elaborated theory of inclusive development. European Journal of Development Research, 27(4), 541–559. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.30
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements, 16(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z
   Google Scholar
• Hackfort, S. (2021). Patterns of Inequalities in Digital Agriculture : A Systematic Literature Review.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. In F. Fischer, & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 43–76). Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-3780(97)82909-3
   Google Scholar
• Hausknost, D., Schriefl, E., Lauk, C., & Kalt, G. (2017). A transition to which bioeconomy? An Exploration of Diverging Techno-Political Choices. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(4), https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040669
   Google Scholar
• Heeks, R., Amalia, M., Kintu, R., & Shah, N. (2013). Inclusive innovation: Definition, conceptualisation and future research priorities (No. 53; Development Informatics).
   Google Scholar
• Hickey, S. (2013). Thinking about the politics of inclusive development : Towards a relational approach . (Issue 1).
   Google Scholar
• Issa, I., Delbrück, S., & Hamm, U. (2019). Bioeconomy from experts’ perspectives – Results of a global expert survey. PLoS ONE, 14(5), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215917
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, T., & Tschötschel, R. (2019). Topic models meet discourse analysis: A quantitative tool for a qualitative approach. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(5), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2019.1576317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jander, W., Wydra, S., Wackerbauer, J., Grundmann, P., & Piotrowski, S. (2020). Monitoring bioeconomy transitions with economic-environmental and innovation indicators: Addressing data gaps in the short term. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(11), https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114683
   Google Scholar
• Kingston, C., & Caballero, G. (2009). Comparing theories of institutional change. Journal of Institutional Economics, 5(2), 151–180. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744137409001283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinschmit, D., Arts, B., Giurca, A., Mustalahti, I., Sergent, A., & Pülzl, H. (2017). Environmental concerns in political bioeconomy discourses. International Forestry Review, 19(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554817822407420
   Google Scholar
• Levidow, L. (2015). Eco-efficient biorefineries: Techno-fix for resource constraints? Économie Rurale, 349–350, 349–350. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.4729
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, D., Yang, Y., Rose, T., & Li, F. (2004). RCV1: a new benchmark collection for text categorization research. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5, 361–397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lühmann, M. (2020). Whose European bioeconomy? Relations of forces in the shaping of an updated EU bioeconomy strategy. Environmental Development, 35(October 2019), 100547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100547
   Google Scholar
• National Agricultural Biotechnology Council. (2000). The Biobased Economy of the Twenty-First Century: Agriculture Expanding into Health, Energy, Chemicals, and Materials.
   Google Scholar
• North, D. C. (1997). The contribution of the New institutional Economics to an understanding of the transition problem. In Wider Perspectives on Global Development, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501850_1
   Google Scholar
• North, D. C. (2003). Understanding the process of economic change. Forum Series on the Role of Institutions in Promoting Economic Growth.
   Google Scholar
• Patermann, C., & Aguilar, A. (2018). The origins of the bioeconomy in the European Union. New Biotechnology, 40, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.04.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramcilovic-Suominen, S., & Pülzl, H. (2018). Sustainable development – A ‘selling point’ of the emerging EU bioeconomy policy framework? Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4170–4180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Airoldi, E. M. (2016). A model of text for experimentation in the social sciences. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111(515), 988–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2016.1141684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D. (2019). Stm: An R package for structural topic models. Journal of Statistical Software, https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v091.i02
   Google Scholar
• Sachs, I. (2004). Inclusive development strategy in an era of globalization. In International Labour Organization (Issue 35).
   Google Scholar
• Schemmel, C. (2012). Distributive and relational equality. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 11(2), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X11416774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmid, O., Padel, S., & Levidow, L. (2012). The bio-economy concept and knowledge base in a public goods and farmer perspective. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 1(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-10770
   Google Scholar
• Sievert, C., & Shirley, K. (2014). LDAvis: A method for visualizing and interpreting topics. Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive Language Learning, Visualization, and Interfaces, June 27, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/w14-3110
   Google Scholar
• Sorrentino, A., Russo, C., & Cacchiarelli, L. (2018). Market power and bargaining power in the EU food supply chain: The role of producer organizations. New Medit, 17(4), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.30682/nm1804b
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sovacool, B. K., Kester, J., Noel, L., & de Rubens, G. Z. (2019). Contested visions and sociotechnical expectations of electric mobility and vehicle-to-grid innovation in five Nordic countries. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, L., & Sovacool, B. K. (2019). The discursive politics of ‘fracking’: Frames, storylines, and the anticipatory contestation of shale gas development in the United Kingdom. Global Environmental Change, 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101935
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637916656379
   Google Scholar