Advertisement

Conclusions: Alternative Bio-Economies

  • Kean Birch
Chapter

Abstract

In the conclusion, I reflect on the implications of the previous chapters by returning to the theoretical concerns I raise throughout the book about the identification of a specifically ‘neoliberal’ bio-economy. Part of this critical engagement with neoliberalism involves identifying alternative bio-economies, reflecting different bio-economies that are not underpinned by market principles.

References

  1. Bakker, K. (2010) The limits of ‘neoliberal natures’: Debating green neoliberalism, Progress in Human Geography 34(6): 715–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, C. (2009) Publics and markets: What’s wrong with neoliberalism?, in S. Smith, R. Pain, S. Marston and J. Jones (eds) The Sage handbook of social geographies, London: SAGE, pp. 269–297.Google Scholar
  3. Bekker, S., Moss, T. and Naumann, M. (2016) The importance of space: Towards a socio-material and political geography of energy transitions, in L. Gailing and T. Moss (eds) Conceptualizing Germany’s energy transition, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 93–108.Google Scholar
  4. Berners-Lee, M. and Clark, D. (2013) The burning question, London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  5. Birch, K. (2016) Market vs. contract? The implications of contractual theories of corporate governance to the analysis of neoliberalism, Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization 16(1): 107–133.Google Scholar
  6. Birch, K. (2017) A research agenda for neoliberalism, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birch, K. and Calvert, K. (2015) Rethinking ‘drop-in’ biofuels: On the political materialities of bioenergy, Science and Technology Studies 28: 52–72.Google Scholar
  8. Birch, K. and Mykhnenko, V. (eds) (2010) The rise and fall of neoliberalism, London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  9. Birch, K., Levidow, L. and Papaioannou, T. (2010) Sustainable capital? The neoliberalization of nature and knowledge in the European knowledge-based bio-economy, Sustainability 2(9): 2898–2918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birner, R. (2018) Bioeconomy concepts, in I. Lewandowski (eds) Bioeconomy, Cham: Springer, pp. 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonneuil, C. and Fressoz, J-B. (2017) The shock of the anthropocene, London: Verso.Google Scholar
  12. Bridge, G. (2008) Environmental economic geography: A sympathetic critique, Geoforum 39: 76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bridge, G. (2009) Material worlds: Natural resources, resource geography and the material economy, Geography Compass 3(3), 1217–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, W. (2015) Undoing the demos, Cambridge, MA: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  15. Cahill, D., Cooper, M., Konings, M. and Primrose, D. (eds) (2018) The SAGE handbook of neoliberalism, London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  16. Calvert, K., Kedron, P., Baka, J. and Birch, K. (2017) Geographical perspectives on sociotechnical transitions and emerging bio-economies: Introduction to a special issue, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 29(5): 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castree, N. (2006) From neoliberalism to neoliberalisation: Consolations, confusions, and necessary illusions, Environment and Planning A 38: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Castree, N. (2008a) Neoliberalising nature: The logics of deregulation and reregulation, Environment and Planning A 40: 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Castree, N. (2008b) Neoliberalising nature: Processes, effects, and evaluations, Environment and Planning A 40: 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. CEC. (2012) Innovating for sustainable growth: A bioeconomy for Europe [COM(2012) 60 Final], Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  21. Coenen, L., Benneworth, P. and Truffer, B. (2012) Towards a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions, Research Policy 41(6): 968–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coenen, L., Moodysson, J. and Martin, H. (2015) Path renewal in old industrial regions: Possibilities and limitations for regional innovation policy, Regional Studies 49(5): 850–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dardot, P. and Laval, C. (2014) The new way of the world, London: Verso.Google Scholar
  24. Frow, E., Ingram, D., Powell, W., Steer, D., Vogel, J. and Yearley, S. (2009) The politics of plants, Food Security 1(1): 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geels, F. (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and case study, Research Policy 31: 1257–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Geels, F. (2005) The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930), Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 17(4): 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldstein, J. and Tyfield, D. (2017) Green Keynesianism: Bringing the entrepreneurial state back in (to question)? Science as Culture, https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1346598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hansen, T. and Coenen, L. (2015) The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 17: 92–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayter, R. (2008) Environmental economic geography, Geography Compass 2: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heidkamp, P. (2008) A theoretical framework for a ‘spatially conscious’ economic analysis of environmental issues, Geoforum 39: 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jackson, T. (2009) Prosperity without growth, London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  32. Kedron, P. (2015) Environmental governance and shifts in Canadian biofuel production and innovation, The Professional Geography 67(3): 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kitchen, L. and Marsden, T. (2011) Constructing sustainable communities: A theoretical exploration of the bio-economy and eco-economy paradigms, Local Environment 16: 753–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levidow, L., Birch, K. and Papaioannou, T. (2013) Divergent paradigms of European agro-food innovation: The knowledge-based bio-economy (KBBE) as an R&D agenda, Science, Technology, and Human Values 38: 94–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levidow, L., Birch, K. and Papaioannou, T. (2012) EU agri-innovation policy: Two contending visions of the knowledge-based bio-economy, Critical Policy Studies 6: 40–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacKenzie, D. (2009) Material markets, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Marsden, T. (2012) Third natures? Reconstituting space through place-making strategies for sustainability, International Journal of the Sociology of Agriculture and Food 19(2): 257–274.Google Scholar
  38. Marsden, T. (2017) Agri-food and rural development: Sustainable place-making, London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mazzucato, M. (2013) The entrepreneurial state, London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  40. McCormick, K. and Kautto, N. (2013) The bioeconomy in Europe: An overview, Sustainability 5: 2589–2608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McDonagh, J. (2015) Rural geography III: Do we really have a choice? The bioeconomy and future rural pathways, Progress in Human Geography 39(5): 658–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McKibben B. (2012) Global warming’s terrifying new math, Rolling Stone 19 July, retrieved from: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719.
  43. McKibben, B. (2016) Recalculating the climate math, New Republic 22 September, retrieved from: https://newrepublic.com/article/136987/recalculating-climate-math.
  44. Mirowski, P. (2013) Never let a serious crisis go to waste, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mitchell, T. (2011) Carbon democracy, London: Verso.Google Scholar
  46. Moore, J.W. (2015) Capitalism in the web of life, London: Verso.Google Scholar
  47. Neimark, B. (2016) Biofuel imaginaries: The emerging politics surrounding ‘inclusive’ private sector development in Madagascar, Journal of Rural Studies 45: 146–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Niggli, U., Slabe, A., Schmid, O., Halberg, N. and Schluter, M. (2008) Vision for an organic food and farming research agenda to 2025, Brussels: IFOAM-EU and FiBL.Google Scholar
  49. OECD. (2006) The bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a policy agenda, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  50. Patchell, J. and Hayter, R. (2013) Environmental and evolutionary economic geography: Time for EEG2? Geografiska Annaler B 95(2): 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pierce, C. (2015) Against neoliberal pedagogies of plants and people: Mapping actor networks of biocapital in learning gardens, Environmental Education Research 21(3): 460–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pinch, T. and Swedberg, R. (eds) (2008) Living in a material world, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Polanyi, K. (1957) The economy as instituted process, in K. Polanyi, C. Arensberg and H. Pearson (eds) Trade and market in the early empires, Illinois: Free Press and Falcon’s Wing Press, pp. 239–270.Google Scholar
  54. Ponte, S. (2014) The evolutionary dynamics of biofuel value chains: From unipolar and government-driven to multipolar governance, Environment and Planning A 46(2): 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ponte, S. and Birch, K. (2014) Introduction: The imaginaries and governance of ‘biofueled futures’, Environment and Planning A 46(2): 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Purcell, M. (2016) Our new arms, in S. Springer, K. Birch and J. MacLeavy (eds) The handbook of neoliberalism, London: Routledge, pp. 613–622.Google Scholar
  57. Rohracher, H. (2010) Biofuels and their publics: The need for differentiated analyses and strategies, Biofuels 1(1): 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Romm, J. (2018) Solar and wind power alone could provide four fifths of US power, reneweconomy.com.au, retrieved from: http://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-and-wind-power-alone-could-provide-four-fifths-of-us-power-75235/.
  59. Scarlat, N. and Dallemand, J-F. (2011) Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: A global overview, Energy Policy 39: 1630–1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schmid, O. et al. (2009) Technology platform organics: Strategic research agenda, Brussels: Technology Platform Organics.Google Scholar
  61. Schmid, O., Padel, S. and Levidow, L. (2012) The bio-economy concept and knowledge base in a public goods and farmer perspective, Bio-based and Applied Economics 1: 47–63.Google Scholar
  62. Shove, E. and Walker, G. (2007) CAUTION! Transition ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transition management, Environment and Planning A 39(4): 763–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Staffas, L., Gustavsson, M. and McCormick, K. (2013) Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and bio-based economy: An analysis of official national approaches, Sustainability 5: 2751–2769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Storper, M. (2016) The neo-liberal city as idea and reality, Territory, Politics, Governance 4(2): 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. TP Organics. (2015) TP Organics work programme 2015–2017, Brussels: IFOAM-EU.Google Scholar
  66. Tyfield, D. (2014) ‘King coal is dead! Long live the king!’: The paradoxes of coal’s resurgence in the emergence of global low-carbon societies, Theory, Culture & Society 31(5): 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tyfield, D. (2017) Liberalism 2.0 and the rise of China, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. White House. (2012) National bioeconomy blueprint, Washington, DC: The White House.Google Scholar
  69. Zwart, H., Krabbenborg, L. and Zwier, J. (2015) Is dandelion rubber more natural? Naturalness, biotechnology and the transition towards a bio-based society, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28: 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kean Birch
    • 1
  1. 1.York UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations