Asdal et al. 2023 – 'The good economy'¶

!!! abstract ‘In brief’ The article proposes the concept of the good economy as an analytical tool for investigating how economic practice is entangled with versions of ‘the good’ (pp. 1–2) [U]. Empirically it compares policy documents on today's bioeconomy (EU, OECD, Norway) with Norwegian documents on aquaculture and oil from the 1970s (p. 4) [U]. The main finding is that while the early oil and aquaculture economies were about inserting the economy into society in a good way, society is ‘surprisingly absent’ in the bioeconomy, which is enacted as an expert issue pursued with tools of economic valuation (pp. 1, 3) [U].

Research question and main claim¶

The aim is not to answer whether the economy has finally become good, but to examine what ‘the good’ of the bioeconomy is supposed to consist of and how it contrasts with earlier versions (p. 2) [U].
They ask whether today's bioeconomy visions might be an even more problematic way of doing the good economy than earlier versions (p. 3) [U].
Main claim: the bioeconomy takes for granted that ‘the bio’ makes an economy good (pp. 1, 10) [U]. The documents do not acknowledge their own internal tensions and do not address how they might play out in society (p. 10) [U].
In the Norwegian blue economy the state is modelled on the enterprise, not the market, with politicians cast as investors (pp. 14, 18–19) [U].

Theoretical perspective¶

Weber's protestant ethic, E. P. Thompson's moral economy and Foucault's governmentality lectures on the market as a regime of veridiction (pp. 4–7) [U].
Social studies of markets and economization (Callon, Çaliskan and Callon), which they find too focused on the economic and with little room for economy–society and economy–state relations (pp. 5–6) [U].
Valuation studies (Muniesa and others), care studies and Charis Thompson's Good Science (pp. 7–8) [U].
Critical bioeconomy studies (Birch, Goven and Pavone), while avoiding ready-made labels like ‘neoliberal’ (p. 8) [U].
Versions of economies, building on Asdal 2014 and Mol: realities enacted differently in different settings, not perspectives on one reality (p. 4) [U].
Weber's conceptual method: a concept is a provisional description refined through the study (p. 19) [U].

Empirical material and context¶

In-depth analysis of policy-related documents from the OECD, the EU and Norway: broad mapping, close reading of a selection, and contrast with historical Norwegian examples (p. 4) [U].
Four versions of economy: (1) green bioeconomy strategies from EU, OECD and Norway (NFD 2016); (2) the blue bioeconomy (OECD Ocean Economy, EU, Norway's ocean strategy, the SINTEF report Value Created from Productive Oceans in 2050); (3) aquaculture in Norway in the 1970s (including NOU 1977:39); (4) the petroleum economy in the 1970s (the ‘Ten Oil Commandments’ and St.meld. nr. 25 (1973–74)) (pp. 4, 8–17) [U].
Period: 1970s and roughly the last 10–15 years before publication (pp. 2, 14–17) [U].

Method¶

A practice-oriented approach to documents (Asdal 2015; Asdal and Reinertsen 2022), attentive to the relations documents enact, the issues they produce, and how they work as tools of valuation (p. 4) [U].
Historical contrast is used to see what is easily taken for granted in the present (p. 4) [U].
The concept is developed step by step through the empirical analysis, after Weber (p. 19) [U].

Key concepts¶

Concept	How the source defines or uses it	Page	U/T
the good economy	Analytical and heuristic tool for investigating how economy and versions of the good are entangled	2, 3, 20	U
tools of valuation	The means by which versions of the economy do valuation, e.g. ecosystem-service calculations or SWOT analysis	3, 12–13	U
versions of economies	Realities enacted differently in different settings, which can contradict, interfere or align	4	U
economization	Process by which things become economic; criticised for leaving little room for the extra-economic	5–6, 12	U
expert issue	The bioeconomy enacted as a question for experts and their tools, not society	1, 3, 12, 18	U
enterprise society	State modelled on the enterprise rather than the market; society and enterprise merge	18–19	U
enact	Used throughout about what documents and policy strategies do with the economy	2, 3, 4, 18	U

How privacy and private data are understood¶

Topic not addressed. The article is about the bioeconomy and earlier Norwegian economies [T].

Arguments and findings¶

EU and OECD define the bioeconomy very differently (biomass vs. biotechnology); the Norwegian strategy follows the biomass definition (pp. 9–10) [U]. Both versions take for granted that ‘the bio’ is good (p. 10) [U].
In the OECD's ocean economy, nature is made calculable through ecosystem services; the economy becomes good only when nature is fully economized (pp. 11–12) [U].
The SINTEF report turns threats into ‘criteria for growth’, so that grave risks do not reduce the growth potential (p. 13) [U]. The report was quoted in a white paper and endorsed by Parliament (p. 12) [U].
Neither the OECD nor the Norwegian blue economy leaves room for political procedure, politics or societal concerns (p. 14) [U].
In the 1970s Parliament limited industrial growth in fish farming through licences, and NOU 1977:39 justified aquaculture with societal aims such as food, rural jobs and settlement (pp. 14–15) [U].
The oil economy was not seen as automatically good; the 1973–74 white paper aimed at a ‘qualitatively better society’ through active government and moderate tempo (pp. 15–17) [U].
One explanation for the absence of the political and societal is that realising the good economy has become a calculative, expert challenge (p. 18) [U].

Limitations the source itself mentions¶

Answering whether the economy has become good is not the objective (p. 2) [U].
Following Weber, the chosen viewpoint is never the only possible one; others may see the phenomena differently (p. 19) [U].
Calculating ecosystem services creates its own unresolved challenges (p. 12) [U].

What the source does not cover¶

Privacy, personal data or digital technology [T].
How the documents were received or used in practice beyond the SINTEF example [T].

Possible relevance for the thesis¶

A concrete example of how Asdal and colleagues analyse Norwegian government documents, including white papers and an NOU, which may serve as a model for method [T].
The question of whether a policy field is treated as an expert issue or as a societal and political question could be asked of digital privacy documents too [T].
If the documents in the thesis present data use as inherently good (for innovation, efficiency, welfare), the article's approach to ‘the good’ claimed in policy documents may be relevant [T].
The historical contrast strategy (p. 4) could suggest comparing current documents with older Norwegian documents on privacy or registers [T].

Connections to other sources¶

Asdal 2015 – same first author. Note that the ‘Asdal 2015’ cited here is a different text (Enacting values from the sea, a book chapter) (pp. 4, 20) [U]. The practice-oriented approach to documents is shared with the issue article [T].
Fourcade 2017 – cited directly, on the moral as the economy's outside (pp. 5, 22) [U].
Foucault 2008 – the article cites Foucault's The Birth of Biopolitics (2008), not Panopticism (pp. 5, 22) [U]. The connection to the Foucault text in the source list is thematic [T].
Mazzucato 2018 – thematic: state, innovation and economic policy [T].

Key quotes¶

“This paper suggests the concept of ‘the good economy’ as an analytical tool for investigating how economic practice is entangled in versions of the good.” (p. 1)

“The bioeconomy is enacted as an expert issue, pursued by the tools of economic valuation, and based in the unquestioned idea that ‘the bio’ makes any economy good.” (p. 1)

“Yet in the documents themselves, these are not addressed or acknowledged” (p. 10)

“It will never automatically be good—it must be made into a good economy, through the determined policy and government of a social democratic nation state.” (p. 17)

“rather than being modelled upon the market, the state is being modelled upon the enterprise.” (p. 19)

Open questions for Rebekka¶

Is the article mainly useful to you as a method example (how to read Norwegian policy documents), or for its argument about the good economy?
Do your documents present data use as something inherently good? What is ‘the good’ in them?
Is digital privacy treated in your documents as an expert issue or as a societal and political question?
Would a historical contrast with older Norwegian documents be useful in your thesis, or is it out of scope?