IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i21p14491-d963400.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New or Traditional Approaches in Argentina’s Bioeconomy? Biomass and Biotechnology Use, Local Embeddedness, and Sustainability Outcomes of Bioeconomic Ventures

Author

Listed:
  • Jochen Dürr

    (Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, 53113 Bonn, Germany)

  • Marcelo Sili

    (CONICET-Centro de Investigación ADETER, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca 8000, Argentina)

Abstract

The bioeconomy continues to be a contested field in the political debate. There is still no consensus on how a bioeconomy should be designed and anchored in society. Alternative bioeconomy concepts that deviate from the mainstream discourse and are based on small-scale, agro-ecological models are usually underrepresented in the debate. This also applies to Argentina, where the diversity of bioeconomic approaches has not yet been documented and analyzed. The objective of this paper is to identify bioeconomic approaches in Argentina, and characterize alternative, more socio-ecological and locally embedded approaches in order to make them more visible for the political debate. Based on literature research, categories were extracted that can be used to distinguish different types of the bioeconomy. Subsequently, these categories were used in an online survey of 47 enterprises representing different sectors of Argentina’s bioeconomy. Using cluster analysis, three groups can be distinguished: a biomass, a biotechnology, and a bioembedded cluster. Argentina’s bioeconomy seems to follow a path dependency logic, but new development paths are also opening up. The bioeconomic approaches discovered in Argentina are partly consistent with contemporary bioeconomy typologies, but there is also great diversity within the groups. All bioeconomic approaches have local connections, but are locally embedded in different ways. In addition to the differences between the bioeconomic approaches, two common elements could also be detected: an interest in sustainable use of natural resources and in building networks using synergies with other actors in the territory. These two elements mean that bioeconomic initiatives could pave the way for a new rural development model in Argentina.

Suggested Citation

  • Jochen Dürr & Marcelo Sili, 2022. "New or Traditional Approaches in Argentina’s Bioeconomy? Biomass and Biotechnology Use, Local Embeddedness, and Sustainability Outcomes of Bioeconomic Ventures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-28, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:14491-:d:963400
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14491/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14491/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maciejczak, Mariusz, 2015. "What are Production Determinants of Bioeconomy?," Problems of World Agriculture / Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, vol. 15(30), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Rolf Meyer, 2017. "Bioeconomy Strategies: Contexts, Visions, Guiding Implementation Principles and Resulting Debates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-32, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Sabine Müller & Steffen Korsgaard, 2018. "Resources and bridging: the role of spatial context in rural entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1-2), pages 224-255, January.
    5. Carmen Priefer & Juliane Jörissen & Oliver Frör, 2017. "Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, February.
    6. Phélinas, Pascale & Choumert, Johanna, 2017. "Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 452-462.
    7. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    8. Marcelo Sili & Jochen Dürr, 2022. "Bioeconomic Entrepreneurship and Key Factors of Development: Lessons from Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-28, February.
    9. Thomas Dietz & Jan Börner & Jan Janosch Förster & Joachim Von Braun, 2018. "Governance of the Bioeconomy: A Global Comparative Study of National Bioeconomy Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    10. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    11. Daniel Hausknost & Ernst Schriefl & Christian Lauk & Gerald Kalt, 2017. "A Transition to Which Bioeconomy? An Exploration of Diverging Techno-Political Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-22, April.
    12. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    13. Mac Clay, Pablo & Sellare, Jorge, 2022. "Value chain transformations in the transition to a sustainable bioeconomy," Discussion Papers 323957, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    14. Carmen Priefer & Rolf Meyer, 2019. "One Concept, Many Opinions: How Scientists in Germany Think About the Concept of Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    2. Ayrapetyan, David, 2023. "Technological innovations and sustainability transitions in the bioeconomy: A multiscalar approach toward the development of bioclusters," EconStor Theses, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 278703, March.
    3. P. J. Stephenson & Anca Damerell, 2022. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy Approaches Need to Enhance the Focus on Biodiversity to Achieve Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Marcelo Sili & Jochen Dürr, 2022. "Bioeconomic Entrepreneurship and Key Factors of Development: Lessons from Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-28, February.
    5. Ayrapetyan, David & Hermans, Frans, 2020. "Introducing a multiscalar framework for biocluster research: A meta-analysis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(9).
    6. George B. Frisvold & Steven M. Moss & Andrea Hodgson & Mary E. Maxon, 2021. "Understanding the U.S. Bioeconomy: A New Definition and Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    7. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    8. Mechthild Donner & Hugo de Vries, 2023. "Innovative business models for a sustainable circular bioeconomy in the french agrifood domain," Post-Print hal-04047682, HAL.
    9. Sebastian Hinderer & Leif Brändle & Andreas Kuckertz, 2021. "Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    10. Stefan Bößner & Francis X. Johnson & Zoha Shawoo, 2020. "Governing the Bioeconomy: What Role for International Institutions?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    11. Juha Peltomaa, 2018. "Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    12. Durwin H.J. Lynch & Pim Klaassen & Lan van Wassenaer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    13. Liesbeth de Schutter & Stefan Giljum & Tiina Häyhä & Martin Bruckner & Asjad Naqvi & Ines Omann & Sigrid Stagl, 2019. "Bioeconomy Transitions through the Lens of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems: A Framework for Place-Based Responsibility in the Global Resource System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-23, October.
    14. Mechthild Donner & Hugo de Vries, 2023. "Innovative Business Models for a Sustainable Circular Bioeconomy in the French Agrifood Domain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-29, March.
    15. Sören Richter & Nora Szarka & Alberto Bezama & Daniela Thrän, 2022. "What Drives a Future German Bioeconomy? A Narrative and STEEPLE Analysis for Explorative Characterisation of Scenario Drivers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-32, March.
    16. Carmen Priefer & Rolf Meyer, 2019. "One Concept, Many Opinions: How Scientists in Germany Think About the Concept of Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, August.
    17. Franz Grossauer & Gernot Stoeglehner, 2020. "Bioeconomy—Spatial Requirements for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.
    18. Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Teodor Marian Cojocaru & Mariana Niculescu & Maria Nache Cimpoeru & Oana Alexandra Călin, 2023. "Progress of EU Member States Regarding the Bioeconomy and Biomass Producing and Converting Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-22, September.
    19. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    20. Sven Wydra, 2019. "Value Chains for Industrial Biotechnology in the Bioeconomy-Innovation System Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, April.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:14491-:d:963400. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.