Published June 20, 2023 | Version v1
Text Open

Visions of Agricultural Development and Bioeconomy – an (un)equal pair? A comparison of Values and Structural Similarities to broader Environmental Discourses

Description

This paper analyses interconnections between discourses which focus on future land use. The discourse on bioeconomy is mainly driven by actors from the Global North. The discourse on agricultural development focuses on economies in the Global South; this paper restricts on the Tanzanian discourse. Although the two discourses address the same policy fields, they have proceeded independently. 

For each of the two discourses, scholars have distinguished three visions: visions of bioeconomy and of agricultural development. In this paper, I ask whether the supporters of these visions share similar values, and whether there exist structural similarities between these visions and broader environmental discourses (sensu Dryzek 1997).

My findings show that the visions supported by political mainstream in the Global North and the Global South share significant similarities in their values and structural similarities with broader environmental discourses. Although the subdominant visions share content similarities, their supporters differ in their values. These visions are composed of a conglomerate of values ranging from a focus on sustainability to societal and economic transformations. Thus, the possibility to form coalitions is much lower for their supporters than for those of the dominant visions. This is worrisome considering the political effectiveness of the subordinate visions.     

Files

Visions of Agricultural Development and Bioeconomy_Schopp.pdf

Files (1.1 MB)

Additional details

Funding

Bundesministerium für Forschung, Technologie und Raumfahrt

Data quality

Accuracy

does not apply

Completeness

The manuscript is provided in its completeness.

Conformity

The manuscript has been deemed conform to Taylor & Francis Group's publications standards (journal: Local Environment).

Consistency

The arguments presented in the manuscript are self-consistent.

Credibility

The manuscript has been vetted by Peer-review. 

Processability

does not apply

Relevance

The accepted manuscript has high relevance in the field of agricultural visions & development, bioeconomy, and environmental discourses. The manuscript has been submitted to Local Environment. 

Timeliness

The submitted manuscript deals with the comparison of visions of agricultural development and bioeconomy and their values and structural similarties to broader environmental discourses.

Understandability

The accepted manuscript is presented in such a way that it should be understood by the wider academic community.