IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v35y2013i2p79-92.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenging the bioeconomy: The dynamics of collective action in Argentina

Author

Listed:
  • Arancibia, Florencia

Abstract

This paper analyzes the local bottom-up dynamics of challenging the growth of a bioeconomy in Argentina. In the last decade, growing controversies and conflict have arisen in the region regarding the adoption of genetically modified crops and the growing use of glyphosate-based herbicides. Even if the industry and the World Health Organization claim that glyphosate is a product of low-toxicity, an increasing body of scientific research shows severe health problems for villagers and farmers. In Argentina, many peasants, neighbors, environmental activists, as well as rural physicians, scientists, agronomic engineers and lawyers have asked for a ban or strict limits on the use of glyphosate-based herbicides. Using a case study, I focus on collective action between 1996 and 2011 aimed at changing “science-based regulations” for the commercialization and use of agrochemicals. I demonstrate that by implementing diverse and innovative collective strategies as well as promoting the creation of new scientific data, affected populations can achieve some degree of influence on decisions regarding risk. Even if social and scientific disagreements over regulatory frameworks for biotechnology in Latin America have been acknowledged in the literature, regulatory science has rarely been thought of as a field of social struggle where social movements can participate and promote change. This is an important contribution to the emerging field of studies focused on political collective action and social movements within science and technology [25].

Suggested Citation

  • Arancibia, Florencia, 2013. "Challenging the bioeconomy: The dynamics of collective action in Argentina," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 79-92.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:35:y:2013:i:2:p:79-92
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.01.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X13000092
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.01.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    2. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    3. Cowan, Robin & Gunby, Philip, 1996. "Sprayed to Death: Path Dependence, Lock-In and Pest Control Strategies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 521-542, May.
    4. Liebowitz, S J & Margolis, Stephen E, 1995. "Path Dependence, Lock-in, and History," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 205-226, April.
    5. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    6. Possas, Mario Luiz & Salles-Filho, Sergio & da Silveira, JoseMaria, 1996. "An evolutionary approach to technological innovation in agriculture: some preliminary remarks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 933-945, September.
    7. Kean Birch & Les Levidow & Theo Papaioannou, 2010. "Sustainable Capital ? The Neoliberalization of Nature and Knowledge in the European “Knowledge-based Bio-economy”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(9), pages 1-21, September.
    8. Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 449-462, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Valeria Ferreira Gregorio & Laia Pié & Antonio Terceño, 2018. "A Systematic Literature Review of Bio, Green and Circular Economy Trends in Publications in the Field of Economics and Business Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-39, November.
    2. Jimena Gonzalez-Ramirez & Poonam Arora & Guillermo Podesta, 2018. "Using Insights from Prospect Theory to Enhance Sustainable Decision Making by Agribusinesses in Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Sanz-Hernández, Alexia & Jiménez-Caballero, Paula & Zarauz, Irene, 2022. "Gender and women in scientific literature on bioeconomy: A systematic review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    4. Phélinas, Pascale & Choumert, Johanna, 2017. "Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 452-462.
    5. Sotiropoulou, Irene & Deutz, Pauline, 2021. "Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(4), December.
    6. Efe Can Gürcan, 2018. "Theorizing Food Sovereignty from a Class-Analytical Lens: The Case of Agrarian Mobilization in Argentina," Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, Centre for Agrarian Research and Education for South, vol. 7(3), pages 320-350, December.
    7. Swinda F. Pfau & Janneke E. Hagens & Ben Dankbaar & Antoine J. M. Smits, 2014. "Visions of Sustainability in Bioeconomy Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, March.
    8. Pascale PHELINAS & Sonia SCHWARTZ, 2017. "Regulating transgenic soybean production in Argentina," Working Papers 201721, CERDI.
    9. Wam, Hilde Karine & Bunnefeld, Nils & Clarke, Nicholas & Hofstad, Ole, 2016. "Conflicting interests of ecosystem services: Multi-criteria modelling and indirect evaluation of trade-offs between monetary and non-monetary measures," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 280-288.
    10. Marlène GUILLON & Jacky MATHONNAT, 2017. "Is there a strategy in China’s health official development assistance to African countries?," Working Papers 201720, CERDI.
    11. Alberto Bezama & Carlo Ingrao & Sinéad O’Keeffe & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Resources, Collaborators, and Neighbors: The Three-Pronged Challenge in the Implementation of Bioeconomy Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
    12. Frédéric Goulet & Matthieu Hubert, 2020. "Making a Place for Alternative Technologies: The Case of Agricultural Bio‐Inputs in Argentina," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(4), pages 535-555, July.
    13. Amaranta Herrero & Fern Wickson & Rosa Binimelis, 2015. "Seeing GMOs from a Systems Perspective: The Need for Comparative Cartographies of Agri/Cultures for Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-24, August.
    14. Benoit Mougenot & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin, 2022. "Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1031-1047, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    2. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    3. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    4. Ramani, Shyama V. & Thutupalli, Ajay, 2015. "Emergence of controversy in technology transitions: Green Revolution and Bt cotton in India," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 198-212.
    5. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    6. Rebekah Brown & Richard Ashley & Megan Farrelly, 2011. "Political and Professional Agency Entrapment: An Agenda for Urban Water Research," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(15), pages 4037-4050, December.
    7. David Weisberger & Melissa Ann Ray & Nicholas T. Basinger & Jennifer Jo Thompson, 2024. "Chemical, ecological, other? Identifying weed management typologies within industrialized cropping systems in Georgia (U.S.)," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(3), pages 935-953, September.
    8. Grazia Cecere & Nicoletta Corrocher & Cédric Gossart & Muge Ozman, 2014. "Lock-in and path dependence: an evolutionary approach to eco-innovations," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1037-1065, November.
    9. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    10. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2008. "Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural 'lock-in' case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 436-446, June.
    11. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.
    12. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    13. Ichiro Watanabe & Soichiro Takagi, 2021. "Technological Trajectory Analysis of Patent Citation Networks: Examining the Technological Evolution of Computer Graphic Processing Systems," The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-25, June.
    14. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Battke, Benedikt & Grosspietsch, David & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Do deployment policies pick technologies by (not) picking applications?—A simulation of investment decisions in technologies with multiple applications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1965-1983.
    15. Albert Faber & Koen Frenken, 2008. "Models in evolutionary economics and environmental policy: Towards an evolutionary environmental economics," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-15, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Apr 2008.
    16. Meynard, Jean-Marc & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Le Bail, Marianne & Lefèvre, Amélie & Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Michon, Camille, 2017. "Designing coupled innovations for the sustainability transition of agrifood systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 330-339.
    17. Marine Agogué & Pascal Le Masson & Douglas K. Robinson, 2012. "Orphan innovation, or when path-creation goes stale: a design framework to characterize path-dependence in real time," Post-Print hal-00707372, HAL.
    18. Puffert, Douglas J., 2002. "Path Dependence in Spatial Networks: The Standardization of Railway Track Gauge," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 282-314, July.
    19. Marine Agogué & Pascal Le Masson, 2015. "Rethinking ideation: a cognitive approach of innovation lock-ins," Post-Print hal-01132377, HAL.
    20. Damien Bazin & Nouri Chtourou & Amna Omri, 2019. "Risk management and policy implications for concentrating solar power technology investments in Tunisia," Post-Print hal-02061788, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:35:y:2013:i:2:p:79-92. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.