Suchergebnisse

One of the pressing societal challenges today relates to climate change and the need to replace fossil-based inputs with renewable resources in the production of fuel, energy, and chemical compounds. This has resulted in the development of biofuels, such as bioethanol, biodiesel, and biogas; bio-products, such as bio-plastics, bio-chemicals, and bio-pharmaceuticals; and bioenergy, such as electricity and district heating generated at biogas or combustion plants. The magnitude and diversity of these initiatives have led scholars, commentators, and policy-makers to talk about a "bioeconomy" and, subsequently, to call for a more comprehensive policy framework to support and direct this emerging field of the economy. The bioeconomy concept has been embraced by many governments around the world with a view to responding to diverse societal challenges, including not only solving issues related to climate change, but also dealing with areas such as food security, resource efficiency, and health problems (German Bioeconomy Council, 2015; Staffas, Gustavsson, & McCormick, 2013). Nevertheless, it remains unclear what the bioeconomy is, and how it can contribute to achieving these broad and potentially contending policy objectives. ; publishedVersion

Although the bioeconomy has been embraced by many governments around the world as a way of responding to the grand challenge of climate change, it remains unclear what the bioeconomy is and how it can contribute to achieving these broad policy objectives. The aim of this paper is to improve our understanding of whether, and how, the bioeconomy includes contending rationales for governance and policy-making. In order to do this, we apply a typology of three bioeconomy visions onto the policy discourse on the bioeconomy. These visions are (1) a bio-technology vision; (2) a bio-resource vision; and (3) a bio-ecology vision. Based on a discourse analysis of 41 submissions to a public hearing on the development of a bioeconomy strategy in Norway, the paper explores the actors involved in shaping the new bioeconomy and analyses their positions on this emerging field. The paper finds that it is possible to categorise the consultative inputs into these three visions, and also that the bio-resource vision is predominant, which reflects the structure of the national economy. Moreover, the paper reflects upon how the contending visions observed imply negotiations and power struggles, which may hamper directionality in the current socio-technical transition.

The EU Framework Programmes (FPs) constitute large arenas for R&D funding and cooperation with research groups in Europe and beyond. For Norway, participation in the EU Framework Programmes (FP) has become an increasingly important dimension of national R&D and innovation policy. Current national R&D priorities are well harmonized with the European agenda, and the annual contribution to Horizon 2020 constitutes a major national investment. Against this background, it is legitimate to expect a considerable return from the participation, both in economic, scientific and societal terms. This report describes a study where we focus on project consortia and their importance for success, participation and cooperation in EU framework programmes. In large parts of these programmes, joining and composing the right consortium is considered a key factor for success. The main questions behind this study is therefore: What characterises successful consortia in EU framework programmes? To what extent are Norwegian researchers and research groups able to form and join such consortia

This analysis indicates that energy, and environmental friendly energy especially, has increased in importance within social science publishing and also in terms of Norwegian participation in national and international research projects. This heightened research interest reflects a stronger focus on environmentally friendly energy in general, in an international context and nationally. The requirements of deploying new energy technologies, reducing energy consumption and building effective and socially sustainable energy markets have to be addressed by politicians, but are also quite visible in international public debate. Social science studies actively contribute to such debate.

Previous studies have pointed at participation in the European Framework Programs for Research and Innovation as elite driven, foremost by large and prestigious universities. By analyzing all proposals (including rejected proposals) rather than funded projects only, we have investigated whether such findings also hold for success in proposal decisions. We study which university characteristics are associated with successful proposal outcomes. Our study finds that university size is indeed an important driver for success, but independent of size; it is essential with a relative high volume of proposals. Those Higher Education Institutions who submit relatively many proposals compared to their size performs better, especially in the European Research Council. What are important success criterions vary across thematic areas and to some extent over time, reflecting changing goals of the EU programs. Success is based on complex mechanisms, where many universities—irrespective of size—for different reasons perform well in the framework programs.

The Norwegian government should utilize the Fulbright Program to a greater extent to support policy goals for the internationalization of higher education and research. This evaluation has demonstrated that there is more flexibility in the program than the written materials suggest. Interviews with the responsible American partners demonstrated a willingness to construct grants and awards based on the national circumstances. If the Norwegian government so wishes, there is room for closer dialogue with the FFN about the kind of grants that will reinforce common fields of interest for Norwegian policy goals and the visions of the Fulbright Program. This can and should be done without the Norwegian government interfering with the fundamental vision of the Fulbright Program.

This article explores whether and how innovation policies promote transitions to more sustainable configurations in socio-technical systems. Empirically it departs from an analysis of the bioeconomy policy strategies and instruments in four Nordic countries. The analysis highlights that while a transformative approach is present at the policy strategy level in the Nordic countries, the bioeconomy policy instruments implemented are significantly less transformative. The article argues that a bioeconomy transition that contributes to sustainable development will require a redirection of policies towards transformative failures (directionality, policy coordination, demand articulation, and reflexivity). In this regard, it is important that policymakers experiment with and explore ways of balancing between traditional market and innovation system approaches and new policy approaches for transformative change.

This article explores whether and how innovation policies promote transitions to more sustainable configurations in socio-technical systems. Empirically it departs from an analysis of the bioeconomy policy strategies and instruments in four Nordic countries. The analysis highlights that while a transformative approach is present at the policy strategy level in the Nordic countries, the bioeconomy policy instruments implemented are significantly less transformative. The article argues that a bioeconomy transition that contributes to sustainable development will require a redirection of policies towards transformative failures (directionality, policy coordination, demand articulation, and reflexivity). In this regard, it is important that policymakers experiment with and explore ways of balancing between traditional market and innovation system approaches and new policy approaches for transformative change.

Over the past 10-15 years the bioeconomy has increased in importance and has been promoted as a possible contribution to address important societal challenges such as climate change, food security, and global health issues. It is argued that the development towards a circular bioeconomy can be characterised as a system change as it requires fundamental changes in both production and consumption systems (Coenen, Hansen, and Rekers 2015; Bugge, Hansen, and Klitkou 2016; Scordato, Bugge, and Fevolden 2017). However, even if governments in many countries have started to introduce policies addressing grand societal challenges, it remains unclear how policies can be implemented to achieve determined goals, and also how such policies can be understood in relation to existing policies (Kuhlmann and Rip 2014; OECD 2015; Schot and Steinmueller 2016). Still, we know very little about the extent to which policies are in fact giving sufficient importance to transformative failures (vis-à-vis market and structural failures). Also, to the extent that transformative failures are given attention in bioeconomy policies, we don't know whether this is consistent in the policy mix or only in terms of formulating visions.