What is the bioeconomy and how does the bioeconomy relate to socio-ecological inequalities? With a focus on biomass sourcing, production and bioenergy, this chapter aims to answer these two questions with the whole book in mind. First, we introduce the conceptual, geographical and methodological focus of the volume. Drawing on political ecology and world systems theory, we develop an analytical lens for the study of global socio-ecological inequalities. Against this background, we sketch out the main findings of the contributions, which focus on conceptual questions, bioeconomy policies and agendas in different countries, as well as the reconfigurations and continuities of socio-ecological inequalities in and beyond the agrarian sector from the local to the global level. The contributions offer insights into different countries in South America, Southeast Asia and Europe as well as into the interrelations between different countries and regions. Finally, the outlook identifies and discusses four areas of further research.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is having profound repercussions for the international system and the global economy. In this conversation, Boris Kagarlitsky, professor at the Moscow School for Social and Economic Sciences and long-standing analyst of Russian society, politics, and the global political economy, discusses the implications of the war on the Russian economy, its financial sector, and the Russian elite. Furthermore, Kagarlitsky analyzes the ongoing crisis of globalization, in particular Western sanctions, rising commodity prices, and the current role of China.

No abstract

All bioeconomy strategies contain certain claims and promises, though these differ from one world region to another. Proceeding from an analysis of bioeconomy debates and the appropriation of the concept by key actors in Argentina and Malaysia, we argue that both countries regard the bioeconomy as a development strategy primarily geared towards the industrial upgrading of agricultural value chains. Its aim is to increase value added in the soy (Argentina) and palm oil (Malaysia) commodity chains by adding further domestic processing steps and developing new branches of industry. This is to lead to social and environmental upgrading and enable the countries to outgrow their subordinate role as biomass exporters. Referring to the world-systems approach and the global value chain literature, we argue that such upgrading strategies must be understood in the context of the hierarchical global division of labour and the position of individual countries in global markets. We show that the promises of industrial, social and environmental upgrading associated with hegemonic bioeconomy visions in Argentina and Malaysia have failed to materialise. Very few new jobs were created, while soybean and palm oil production continue to rely on environmentally harmful techniques. The socioecological long-term costs of the current production model remain unaddressed and unresolved, primarily because property relations and the underlying profit-oriented production model based on mechanisation, monocropping and a greater use of pesticides are never questioned. Should Argentina and Malaysia continue on their current paths, their chances of attaining the bioeconomy’s purported socioeconomic and environmental goals are very slim.

No abstract