4.6 Article

Whose transformation is this? Unpacking the 'apparatus of capture' in Sweden's bioeconomy

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2021.11.005

Keywords

Sustainability transformations; Bioeconomy; Forest industry; Discourse; Sweden; Climate change

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council Formas [2016-2030, 2016-00857, 2016-00786]
  2. Mistra, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, through the research programme Mistra Environmental Communication
  3. Formas [2016-00857, 2016-00786] Funding Source: Formas

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the development of the Swedish bioeconomy and the influential parties involved. It reveals that the Swedish bioeconomy is framed as an issue of innovation governance, blurring the boundaries between public and private interests in the forest sector.
This study investigates how and by whom the Swedish (forest) bioeconomy has been shaped so far. We unpack emerging bioeconomies as discursive constructs and use the 'apparatus of capture' as a conceptual framework to understand and rethink the Swedish bioeconomy. Based on analysis of empirical data from multiple sources (e.g., online surveys, in-depth interviews, participatory observations), we identify a closed bioeconomy network structure that includes forest industries, major forest owner associations, regional councils and research institutes/universities. The network (re)produces three key storylines that appeal to the majority of parties in the national parliament, defines the boundaries of relevant expertise, and discredits environmental regulation and expertise. Through these storylines the Swedish bioeconomy is turned into an issue of innovation governance, which blurs the boundaries between public and private interests in forests. To counteract future capture, different types of knowledges and forest perspectives need further exploration in Swedish bioeconomy and forest governance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available