Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models

Abstract

Bioeconomy as a new promissory discourse neither challenges the paradigm of economic growth, nor questions its embeddedness in capitalist (neo-)colonial patriarchal power relations. However, the calls for a ‘genuine’ socio-ecological transformation and for alternative bioeconomy visions imply exactly a destabilization of these power relations. Drawing on the Bielefeld subsistence approach and on its colonialism–capitalism–patriarchy nexus, I argue that the latest bioeconomy strategy and policy papers of both the EU and Estonia each disregard certain spheres of the bioeconomy due to the three-dimensional power relations. As a seemingly neutral political discourse, the bioeconomy is shaped by cultural assumptions and narratives that determine and perpetuate what is deemed worthy of protection and what is pushed aside as merely ‘natural’. As such, the current bioeconomy papers promote a ‘biomass-based model of capital accumulation’ that is essentially built on the prerequisite of the subordination, devaluation, appropriation and/or exploitation of (1) different geographical regions, (2) ecological foundations, and (3) prevalent bioeconomy practices. As a widespread agricultural practice in Eastern Europe, Food Self-Provisioning (FSP) serves as a good example of how predominant bioeconomy models (1) simply operate as new forms of postcolonial development discourse, instead of embracing the plurality of decolonial ‘alternatives to development’; (2) deepen the human–nature dichotomy by regarding nature as a mere resource to be extracted more efficiently instead of cultivating mutually nourishing partnership-like relation(ship)s with nature; and (3) maintain the separation between monetized and maintenance economies, rather than fostering ethics of care to overcome the structural separation between the latter.

The more things change, the more they stay the same: promises of bioeconomy and the economy of promises

“…Due to these differences in analysis, they also differ in the imaginaries of alternative modes of being and in their suggestions for transformative strategies. Pungas (2023) analyzes the bioeconomy strategies of Estonia and the EU to show that they systematically render invisible the majority of the processes and activities that form the foundation of any economy. Drawing on the subsistence approach of the Bielefeld school of feminist economics, she stresses the role of unequal power relations in effecting the capitalist, colonial and patriarchal separations and hierarchizations through which this is achieved, and argues that these effects of social domination currently prevent alternative possibilities from becoming part of real alternatives.…”

Navigating the Biocosmos: Cornerstones of a Bioeconomic Utopia

“…As Pungas [17] points out, the smallholder household and its associated house-and farmwork are major blind spots in today's bioeconomy agenda. These blind spots are the invisible foundations that have ever since supported and sustained the economy but have not been recognized as such, have been devalued, and have been deemed undesirable [167].…”

“…Whereas the latter two narratives (II and III) harmonize well with each other, both being founded on the promise of technological salvation and "green economic growth", the original narrative of Georgescu-Roegen is incompatible with either of the two, as it rejects both the concept of limitless growth beyond ecological boundaries and the concept of sustainable development, arguing that the green growth paradigm is not contributing to a transition towards a post-industrial age but constitutes the very extension of the industrial order and its power structures [17].…”

“…In consequence, the technology-driven narrative has "hijacked" the original bioeconomy [11]. This has occurred despite the various reality checks concerning the tenability of the green growth promises [2,17] and the low ability of bioeconomy innovations to contribute to genuine socio-ecological transformations [19,20]. To resolve this conflictual situation in the bioeconomy, a thorough and "serious discussion of its theoretical foundations" has been called for by Giampietro [21] (p. 143).…”

Dachas and food democracy—What makes a (good) food citizen?

“…Most forms of the alternative agri-food movement and AFNs (alternative food networks) originate from the Western context, or, increasingly, from the South (e.g., Thornton, 2020). However, as various scholars, including Müller (2020), Jehlička (2021), and Pungas (2023), have demonstrated, knowledge originating in the The terms "food citizenship" and "agrarian citizenship" are often used interchangeably with the term food democracy. Food citizenship di ers from food justice and food sovereignty in that it focuses on transitioning people from passive consumers to active food or agrarian citizens; it is not based on rights or entitlements, nor is it adversarial, but rather seeks to diminish the influence of "Big Food" by providing information, skills, and alternative access to food in order to democratize food systems (Booth and Coveney, , p. ; Wittman, ).…”