| Abstract |
Bioeconomy conceptualisations often invoke opportunities to transition towards innovative biotechnologies, bioresources and applications. Clarifying goals has implications for the regulations needed for successful transitions. However, most countries have not yet made final decisions on how to regulate particular bio-innovations: those based on genetic-engineering Certain genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are still considered high-risk, as full scientific consensus is missing regarding the magnitude/reversibility of potential negative impacts. New Zealand is among these countries; regulations require a case-by-case approval of high-risk GMOs. Key organisations are polarised regarding the ideal kind of bioeconomy. This article draws on literature syntheses, to clarify what features can be regarded as 'the most distinctive' for three economic visions currently debated in New Zealand: a natural bioeconomy (BE-1), a genetic-engineering bioeconomy (BE-2) and circular economy (CE). The research objective is to understand what kind of economic transitions are being called-for by key actors in New Zealand. Findings indicate a long-standing BE-2 coalition dominated by science and commercial interests; and a recent CBE-1 coalition already implementing multiple, albeit fragmented, policies. The framework can support similar research in countries still affected by BE-1/BE-2 debates, enabling robust and replicable analyses, longitudinally and comparatively. Agendas for future conceptual and empirical research are also presented. |
