Search results

The bioeconomy occupies the centre of the Green Deal, the EU's plan to support transformative growth following the COVID-19 episode. However, parts of the EU, such as countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) continue to lag behind in harnessing the potential held by the bioeconomy. This article argues that in CEE countries, where the primary and conventional bioeconomy sectors play a more important role, 'early' transition pathways such as improvements in productivity and practice- as well as commercialisation-oriented innovation (the do–use–interact model: DUI) are just as important as approaches based on (generally publicly supported) R&D, innovation adoption, and technology transfer (science–technology–innovation model: STI), typically associated with high-value bioindustrial applications. The argument is tested by conducting a survey of 352 experts in the region that gives an insight into the CEE macro-region's assets with respect to deploying the bioeconomy's potential and assessing the transition pathways relevant to the better performance of bioeconomy (primary, manufacturing, and other related) sectors. The results show the particular relevance of consolidating the primary and traditional sectors to support improvements in productivity based on the vertical and horizontal interaction typically associated with DUI, while the relevance of STI is mostly linked to advanced sectors, which are narrowly distributed across the region. The findings are relevant to policy given that the EU's bioeconomy policy has thus far chiefly focused on STI support that better corresponds to the needs of countries at more advanced stages of developing the bioeconomy, but is less appropriate for the specific context and needs of CEE.

The article presents landscapes as natural, historical, cultural, social and political phenom-ena, and above all as a meaningful part of the environment. We will argue – by giving a contextual framework of landscape changes followed by four case studies from Central and Eastern Europe – that comprehen-sion of landscapes has declined in the 20thcentury. Along with urbanization, globalization and other societal processes rapidly varying socio-economic formations have caused alienation: changes in power result in changes in a society's values and thus some landscape elements are disintegrating, fading or disappear-ing and, as a result, these landscapes are taking on new, altered or modified appearances, functions and meanings. Every change in landscape needs some time to become accepted but if this re-coding of what is regarded as valuable is constantly changing, people become confused, with resultant physical conse-quences: land abandonment; illegal dumping; ill fitting infrastructures; inappropriate housing developments; etc. The main question is whether modern development, e.g. tourism, enhances the relationship between people and the landscape.

Many scholars have asked themselves if and for how long they should use the concept of "post-socialism." We review some ways in which post-socialism is no longer used productively and suggest that one way to analyze the enduring effects of socialism (a useful role for the concept of post-socialism) is by paying attention to how economic and political elites in Central and Eastern Europe continue to use the ghost of state-socialism as the ultimate boogeyman, disciplinary device, and "ideological antioxidant." We call this blend of post-1989 anti-communism and neoliberal hegemony "zombie socialism," and we argue that it is a key component of contemporary capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe. We illustrate briefly some cases of zombie socialism, using data such as EU 28 statistics on labor, wages, work–life (im)balance, income tax, housing, and housing policies to show the effects of this hegemonic discourse. The presence of zombie socialism for almost three decades in Central and Eastern Europe made some of these countries "more" capitalist than countries with longer capitalist traditions in Europe. We join others who have suggested that there is nothing to transition any longer, as the "transition" is long over.

Newly industrialized countries and transition economies are often perceived as a threat to Western countries in public discussion, and concerns about economic 'competitiveness' arise. The present paper focuses on the specific macro-economic term 'price competitiveness'. It analyzes the underlying assumptions of the term, explainshow the 'price competitiveness' indicator is composed, and what the restrictions arewhen applying it to transition economies. When calculating the 'price competitiveness' indicator for Central and Eastern European New Member States of the European Union in the last decade, all ten countries show values that are conventionally understood as a steady 'loss in price competitiveness'. Still, this has not led to lower export growth in the last decade in these countries. Instead, all ten assessed countries show above-average growth in Exports, in Manufacturing goods, and in Gross Domestic Product, compared to the rest of the world.The 'price competitiveness' indicator fails, due to inherent assumptions and technical implications, to explain the Export development in economies that are fastgrowing and going through a process of industrialization - so called 'catch-up economie' - what has been the case in the Central and Eastern European countries in the last decade. The 'price competitiveness' indicator should thus not be applied irrespectively of a country's economic situation.

PurposeThe purpose of the research is to shed light on the evolution of distribution structures and its consequent implications for supply chain management (SCM) in the context of the emerging markets of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).Design/methodology/approachA structured literature review followed by two case studies, which combine qualitative and quantitative analysis. Mainly in‐depth interviews were used, with company sales data analysis in terms of variation and forecast accuracy.FindingsIt was found that CEE distribution structures are overlapping, and along complex traditional structures there exists a possibility for a more direct approach. This modern key‐account approach improves supply chain performance, mainly due to echelon elimination and information sharing. The case studies also illustrate that supply chain demand distortion originating practices create uncertainty in demand, even in the case of modern key accounts. The findings therefore suggest that general SCM approaches of the "West" are evident and appropriate also in the "East".Research limitations/implicationsOwing to the limited number of case studies, this research is considered exploratory. The presented two case studies are essentially illustrative examples of the distribution operations of two international companies in CEE markets.Practical implicationsFor practitioners, the two case studies provide important insight on the nature of alternative distribution structures in CEE, and what the level of forecast accuracy and the demand fluctuation may be expected. It is proposed that the emerging opportunities for supply chain partnership development should be carefully reviewed.Originality/valueThe paper draws upon real‐life data from emerging CEE markets with an approach that is not commonly used in distribution and SCM studies on CEE.