INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE OF BIOECONOMY POLICIES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF UKRAINE AND THE VISEGRAD GROUP COUNTRIES
Abstract
Introduction. In the context of the European Green Transition, the development of effective bioeconomy policies has become increasingly important, necessitating the adaptation of national institutional architectures to the challenges of sustainable development. For Ukraine, which is undergoing structural transformation and post-war recovery, the design of a functional institutional model aligned with best European practices – particularly those of the Visegrad Group countries – is of paramount importance.
Methods. The research applies an institutional approach, qualitative comparative analysis, structural-functional method, and content analysis of official strategies, regulations, and programmes (2015–2025). It also introduces an original typology of institutional architecture based on two dimensions: the degree of strategy formalisation and the level of cross-sectoral coordination.
Results. The Visegrad Group countries significantly outperform Ukraine in terms of institutional prerequisites for bioeconomy policy formation. Slovakia demonstrates the most advanced model, combining an approved strategy with multi-actor coordination through clusters and hubs. Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary have implemented various formats of platform-based interaction and political integration of the bioeconomy into other strategic domains, such as the circular economy, agricultural policy, and R&I agendas. In contrast, Ukraine still possesses a fragmented institutional framework with no unified national strategy. A roadmap is proposed for the implementation of relevant practices, including the establishment of a platform under the Ministry of Agrarian Policy, the development of cluster initiatives, and integration into the BIOEAST initiative.
For the first time, this study offers a structured typology of bioeconomy institutional architectures across five countries using a two-dimensional analytical framework. It highlights key components suitable for institutional borrowing, along with justifications for their implementation.
Discussion. Further research should focus on developing indicators of institutional capacity in the bioeconomy domain, assessing the effectiveness of multi-level coordination, and deepening the sector-specific evaluation of policy outcomes (e.g. agriculture, biotechnology, renewable energy).
Keywords
Full Text:
>PDF
References
European Commission. (2018). Updated Bioeconomy Strategy – A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe (COM(2018) 673 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
Śliwa, R., & Pink, M. (2025). Institutional environment of the bioeconomy from a theoretical perspective. In The circular bioeconomy (pp. 35–57). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003453529-3
Dietz, T., Börner, J., Förster, J. J., & von Braun, J. (2018). Governance of the bioeconomy: A global comparative study of national bioeconomy strategies. Sustainability, 10(9), 3190. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093190
Newell, P., Pattberg, P., & Schroeder, H. (2012). Multiactor governance and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 365–387. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020911-094659
Patra, N. K., & Babu, S. C. (2023). Institutional and policy process for climate smart agriculture: Evidence from Nagaland, India. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2022.024
Di Gregorio, M., Fatorelli, L., Paavola, J., Locatelli, B., Pramova, E., Nurrochmat, D. R., May, P. H., Brockhaus, M., Sari, I. M., & Kusumadewi, S. D. (2019). Multi-level governance and power in climate change policy networks. Global Environmental Change, 54, 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.003
Bugge, M. M., Hansen, T., & Klitkou, A. (2016). What is the bioeconomy? Journal of Cleaner Production, 130, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.008
Agroberichten Buitenland. (2024, June 10). Ukraine: Strategy for agriculture and rural development – 2030. Retrieved June 1, 2025, from https://www.agroberichtenbuitenland.nl/actueel/nieuws/2024/06/10/ukraine---strategy-for-agro-and-rural-development
Koval, O., Koval, I., & Koval, O. (2020). Regional aspects of the bioeconomy strategy in Ukraine. Economics and Business Management, 11(4), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.31548/bioeconomy2020.04.009
CEE2ACT. (n.d.). Slovakia – CEE2ACT Hub. CEE2ACT. https://www.cee2act.eu/hub/slovakia/
Petzold, J., Hawxwell, T., Jantke, K. et al. (2023). A global assessment of actors and their roles in climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 13, 1250–1257. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01824-z
European Commission. (2018). A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/ec_ bioeconomy_strategy_2018.pdf
BIOEAST. (2024). Deploying the bioeconomy in the EU: A framework approach for bioeconomy strategy development. https://bioeast.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Deploying-the-Bioeconomy-in-the-EUA-framework-approach-for-bioeconomy-strategy-development_Expert-Report.pdf
European Commission. (2020). Farm to Fork Strategy – At the heart of the European Green Deal. https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en
Patani, S., Mubareka, S. B., Olsson, M., Girardi, J., Kilsedar, C., Zepharovich, E., & Camia, A. (2024). EU bioeconomy monitoring system dashboards: Extended with social indicators (JRC136613, Publications Office of the European Union). https://doi.org/10.2760/827057
Kozyra, J., & Cieślikowska, J. (2024). Overview of state of play on bioeconomy in Poland [PDF]. BIOEAST. Retrieved from https://bioeast.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/country_overview_poland.pdf
Stonawská, K. (2019). Overview of state of play on bioeconomy in Czech Republic: What is currently available for a bioeconomy strategy? Czech Republic Ministry of Agriculture. https://bioeast.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WS3_Czech.pdf
Juhasz, A. (2019, May 3). Overview of state of play on bioeconomy in Hungary. Workshop “Facilitating development of bioeconomy policy – needs and gaps”, Brussels. https://bioeast.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/country_overview_hungary.pdf
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic. (2023). Bioeconomy concept paper: Slovakia. BIOEAST Knowledge Platform. https://bioeast.eu/knowledge-platform/bioeconomy-concept-paper-slovakia-2023/
Shyrokykh, K. (2023, July 14). Ukraine and the European Green Deal. The Loop – ECPR’s Political Science Blog. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/ukraine-and-the-european-green-deal/
El-Chichakli, B., von Braun, J., Lang, C., Barben, D., & Philp, J. (2016). Five cornerstones of a global bioeconomy. Nature, 535(7611), 221–223. https://doi.org/10.1038/535221a
Vivien, F.-D., Nieddu, M., Befort, N., Debref, R., & Giampietro, M. (2019). The hijacking of the bioeconomy. Ecological Economics, 159, 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.027
Kovacikova, Z., & Knapek, J. (2021). Bioeconomy policy implementation in the Czech Republic: Opportunities and barriers. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126456
BIOEAST Initiative. (2021). Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA). https://bioeast.eu/sria/
Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1), 1–25.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Sage.
Council of the European Union. (2024). Communication on biotech and bioeconomy (COM(2024) 137). https://data.consilium.europa.eu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35774/ibo2025.01-02.036
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
