Ouvrir le menu



In laboratorio veritas: economic experiments to measure wine consumer preferences. 

Riccardo Vecchio (University of Napoli Federico II)

06 mars 2022

  The vast majority of available studies on wine preferences have investigated consumer behaviour via stated preferences; thus incorporating hypothetical bias. In addition, marketing scholars generally tend to concentrate singularly on the influence on preferences of core attributes of wine (as brand, origin, sensory characteristics), while not deeply analysing the complex relationships among these factors. I will present and discuss the advantages (and the limits) of investigating wine consumer preferences applying experimental economics mechanisms combined with hedonic evaluations. An overview of several recent studies will build the ground (hopefully) for a lively debate.

Riccardo Vecchio (MSc, PhD) is Associate Professor in Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy), Department of Agricultural Sciences. Riccardo is currently adjunct professor at KEDGE Business School in Bordeaux (France). His research activities are currently focused on consumer attitudes and behaviour towards wine and food product attributes. In particular, he applies economic and behavioral experiments to analyze consumer food preferences. He has participated in over 20 national and international research projects. To date, Riccardo has published 85 peer-reviewed scientific papers, with over 2060 citations and an h-index of 23 (Scopus database). According to the updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators, in the years 2019 and 2020, Riccardo stands among the 100.000 most productive scholars in the world (https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/2).

The fairytale of technological spillovers – an alternative view on technological knowledge 

Andreas Pyka 

18 mai 2022 – University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, Germany 

Since Kenneth Arrow has introduced the idea of new technological knowledge as a public good in 1962, economists refer to the problem of spillover effects and their distorting effects on the incentives to invest in innovation. In industrial economics the incentive reducing effects of technological spillovers are widely considered to be responsible for a sub-optimal investment in research and development.  

In growth economics, however, technological spillovers are considered as idea creating effects, which allow to overcome the trap of diminishing growth rates characteristic for growth models in the Solow fashion. In the so-called new growth theory, mutual exploitation of knowledge is considered to responsible for synergetic effects which explain long run positive growth rates.  

This contradiction cannot be resolved within the mainstream framework but requires a new perspective on technological knowledge, which is jointly created and diffused in complex innovation networks. To analyze knowledge dynamics, agent-based models offer an alternative which allows new insights in line with modern approaches in innovation policies, where – since at least two decades – innovation clusters, knowledge transfer and pre-competitive cooperation have replaced incentive-oriented innovation policies, which focus single sided on the reparation of assumed market failures because of supposed public good features of new knowledge. 

Andreas Pyka holds the chair for Innovation Economics at the University of Hohenheim (Germany) since 2009. He is one of the world best specialist of complexity and innovation economics and evolutionary economics. 

After having worked on the question of evolutionary growth models, he became interested in agent-based models and the role of knowledge in the formation of networks. For the past few years, he has been working in issues related to the ecological transition, and more particularly in the bioeconomy.

Fit for social innovation? Policy mix reflections for EU energy and climate policy making

Karoline Rogge, 12/04/22


Achieving climate-neutrality by mid-century and its intermediary reduction targets for 2030, notably the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 55% by 2030, requires a transformation of our systems of production and consumption. In essence, such transformations are socio-technical change processes that require a combination of technological and social innovation along the way. While it is widely acknowledged that ambitious climate policy mixes are needed to accelerate such transition processes, research and practise have largely focused on their importance for spurring technological innovation. In this presentation, which is based on an joint output with SONNET colleagues, I argue that energy and climate policy making should pay more attention to social innovation as much needed puzzle piece for successful decarbonisation. I illustrate this point by discussing the extent to which the EU’s proposed Fit for 55 package is already considering social innovation in energy. After highlighting the diversity of social innovation in energy and introducing policy mix thinking in the context of social innovation in energy, I illustrate how existing policy mixes matter for three innovation types: renewable energy cooperatives, participatory incubation and experimentation, and local electricity exchange. Based on these insights and discussions from a policy dialogue event I will present twelve practical action points of how to better consider social innovation in energy and climate policy making in the EU and beyond, thereby hopefully stimulating a broader discourse on the dual need for social and technological innovation for reaching climate-neutrality.

This presentation is based on joint work of Karoline Rogge, Maria Stadler, Tessa de Geus, Sabine Hielscher, Julia Wittmayer, Annalena Broich, Adrienne Kotler, Niklas Mischkowski, Agata Stasik, Adélie Ranville and Anne-Lorène Vernay. The research was conducted within the SONNET project (www.sonnet-energy.eu) which has received

funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 837498.

Economic Growth, Structural Change and Transformation:
What’s important now? 

Andreas Pyka 

23/03/2022 – University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, Germany 

Economics today is under sever critique because of the limited abilities to provide answers concerning long term economic development. Because of the prevailing quantitative orientation and the focus on substitution, mainstream economic theory is not capable to include qualitative developments like structural change and transformation.  

Modern evolutionary innovation economics offers an alternative and places central qualitative change triggered in complex innovation systems. However, also modern evolutionary innovation economics falls short when it comes to transformative change encompassing the whole economic systems including the interaction between supply and demand sides.  

The current developments in the knowledge-based bioeconomy are an example par excellence for a comprehensive transformation which has the power not only to overcome the lock-in into fossil-based technologies but to contribute substantially to new patterns of production and consumption and to achieve higher degrees of sustainability.  

In order to understand better this crucial transformation processes and to derive adequate policy recommendations, innovation economics needs to address the ability of innovation systems to pass tipping points in order to fundamentally change the patterns of production and consumption, before the Earth climate system reaches its tipping point which would go hand in hand with devastating and irreversible effects. 

Prospering without growth Science, Technology and Innovation in a post-growth era”

 Mario Pansera, 27/01/22

 The feasibility and desirability of endless economic growth is being increasingly questioned by scholars and activists. While envisioning alternative economic models is key to assure the sustainability and wellbeing of present and future generations, few studies have analysed what might be the role of ‘innovation’ in a post-growth era. Innovating has become an imperative for the survival and expansion of any form of organisation. But this ‘innovate or die mania’ underpins assumptions – such as technological determinism and productivism – that neglect the socially constructed character of technological development, its politics and its capacity to enable (or disable) just and equitable societies. In this seminar we posit that untangling innovation from growth is key to imagine a postgrowth era. We show how alternative bottom up initiatives, promoted by a variety of different organizational forms, have challenged mainstream ideas about innovation and growth. These experiments provide a glimpse about what ‘innovation without growth’ could mean in terms of technology and social organization. We conclude by proposing new paths in research aimed at exploring under which conditions post-growth-oriented organizations can flourish and diffuse. 

In this event, it is our honor to host Dr. Mario Pansera, Distinguished Researcher by the Universida de Vigo and affiliated Researcher at the Autonoma University of Barcelona. Mario is Director of the UVigo Post-Growth Innovation Lab, and his work focuses on Responsible Research and Innovation. He will present his research on Innovation for postgrowth.


Séminaire du 20 mai 2021. 10h-12h

  • en français et en ligne (ID de réunion : 880 1804 5612 – Code secret : 879029)
  • « Refonder l’agriculture à l’heure de l’Anthropocène »

    Comment allons-nous manger demain et qui produira notre nourriture ?

    Cette question peut paraître saugrenue pour de nombreux occidentaux qui ont accès à une nourriture abondante, variée et à des prix modérés. Un événement d’une ampleur considérable fragilise cette facilité d’accès telle que nous la connaissons depuis 50 ans : l’Anthropocène. Nous avons basculé dans une nouvelle époque géologique qui déstabilise grandement l’activité agricole et nous oblige à réinventer en profondeur le fonctionnement de nos systèmes alimentaires depuis la production des matières premières jusqu’à leur consommation.

    Bertrand Valiorgue offre dans cet ouvrage un cadre d’analyse inédit qui permet de comprendre pourquoi la trajectoire que nous poursuivons à l’heure actuelle en matière d’agriculture ne peut en aucun cas convenir au contexte si particulier de l’Anthropocène. En s’appuyant sur les travaux issus de l’économie néo-institutionnelle et la théorie des biens communs, il offre des pistes de réflexion qui questionnent les fondements de l’agriculture. Il montre que si elle se fait régénératrice, l’agriculture compte parmi les solutions et non les problèmes de l’ère géologique de l’Anthropocène. Cette bifurcation de notre modèle agricole s’impose à toute la société française et sa nécessité devient chaque jour plus évidente. Dans le cas contraire, le risque d’une disparition pure et simple de l’agriculture est tout sauf négligeable.

B. Valiorgue (IAE Clermont Auvergne)

Séminaire du 8 avril 2021, 10 a.m.

  • In English and online (meeting ID: 860 0745 1801; password: 053839)

  • « Agri-food system transformation: reflections on some recent trends »
    Recently, there is a lot of interest in agri-food system transformation, for example spurred by the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. This agri-food system transformation has different drivers, different possible transition pathways towards future agri-food systems, of which some are still tentative while others are becoming already more visible and tangible. In this talk I will reflect on some recent work I have been involved in, touching on topics such as the influence of digitalization and other novel technologies, the idea of mission-orientation in innovation for food systems-transformation, and the role that intermediary structures can play in fostering and facilitating this transition in just and responsible ways.

Laurens Klerkx is Professor Agrifood Innovation and Transition at the Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group of Wageningen University, The Netherlands, of which he has been part since 2002. He obtained his PhD from the same university and is an internationally recognized expert in the field of agricultural innovation studies, doing social science research on various topics such as institutional change in research and advisory organizations, roles and positions of organizations that broker multi-stakeholder networks for innovation, digital agriculture innovation, transformative innovation in agri-food and innovation system development. Throughout his career, Laurens has (co-)authored and published more than 0 articles in international peer reviewed journals. His work informs policy makers, through contributions to policy oriented publications and direct engagement through invited presentations with organizations like the World Bank, the European Commission, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the United Nations Commission for Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

Séminaire du 04 mars 2021

  • « Les formes d’unités de méthanisation agricoles en Champagne Ardenne : entre dynamique territoriale et dynamique industrielle »

    La méthanisation agricole suit un chemin de développement lié à la problématique de son insertion dans trois chaines de valeur distinctes : celle de la biomasse, celle de l’énergie et celle du traitement des déchets. Cette triple insertion est à l’origine d’une diversité de modes d’appropriation de la technologie de production de biogaz qui génère des conflits et des solutions de compromis variés entre différents acteurs au sein des trois chaines de valeur. La Champagne Ardenne dispose sur un même territoire d’une diversité de modalité de développement de la méthanisation agricole, ce qui lui est spécifique en comparaison d’autres territoires de l’hexagone. Après avoir présenté la grille d’analyse fondée sur l’upgrading – un concept issu de l’approche en termes de Global Value Chain – pour étudier le processus d’innovation de la méthanisation, nous proposons une typologie des unités champardennaises ainsi que des clés de lecture pour expliquer les raisons de cette diversité.

P. Grouiez (Université de Paris)


Séminaire du 31 Janvier 2020

  • « Une histoire profonde de la bioéconomie »

    Notre analyse propose une lecture de longue période des transformations qu’a connues l’agriculture fondée une triple perspective temporelle : celle d’une « économie générale » (Bataille) qui inscrit l’histoire de sociétés humaines dans celle de la nature et de la vie définie ici comme appropriation du flux d’énergie reçu par la terre ; celle des régimes socio-métaboliques marquées par une coupure radicale à la fin du xviiie siècle lorsque l’Europe, puis progressivement de l’ensemble de l’humanité, en sont venus à dépendre de plus en plus des ressources tirées du sous-sol pour leur approvisionnement en énergie et matière ; enfin celle des configurations hégémoniques qui se sont succédés dans l’histoire du capitalisme. L’hégémonie du Royaume-Uni s’accompagne d’une division internationale du travail dans laquelle l’ensemble de la planète est mobilisé pour approvisionner des marchés mondiaux de biomasse centrés sur l’Europe. L’hégémonie des États-Unis se traduit par un bouleversement radical de la place de de l’agriculture, dans le métabolisme social. Alors que l’industrie chimique multiplie les produits de synthèse, l‘agriculture se spécialise dans la fourniture d’aliments et, dans le même temps, devient consommatrice d’énergie et non plus fournisseuse, comme elle l’avait toujours été dans l’histoire humaine.

    Depuis trois décennies, ces modalités de production et d’utilisation des produits agricoles sont contestées. Le « projet bioéconomique » participe de cette contestation. Il propose de faire le chemin à l’envers et remplacer les énergies fossiles par des produits agricoles dans la production de diverss produits de synthèse. L’industrie chimique voit ainsi dans la biomasse une nouvelle source de matières premières à l’égal de ce qu’ont été le charbon et le pétrole, avec le risque d’y voir transposée la même logique minière.

G. Allaire (INRAE) et B. Daviron (CIRAD) – – séminaire commun Chaire de Bioéconomie Industrielle & laboratoire REGARDS (URCA)


Séminaire du 22 janvier 2019

  • Prendre du champ sur l’émergence. Proposition d’un cadre conceptuel et méthodologique de l’émergence à partir du cas de la biologie synthétique

Benjamin Raimbault, Cermes3

Séminaire du 15 février 2019

  • Innovation et territoire

Didier Chabaud, IAE Paris – Sorbonne Business School

Séminaire du 13 mars 2019

  • L’analyse économique des services écosystémiques

Harold Levrel, Agro Paris Tech

Séminaire du 14 juin 2019

  • Productivity or transformation towards sustainability

Andreas Pyka, Université d’Hohenheim, head of the chair for innovation economics


Séminaire du 08 juin 2018

  • Quel impact pour les coopératives agricoles ? une évaluation économique, sociale et environnementale

Damien Rousselière (Université d’Angers, Agrocampus Ouest)

Séminaire du 23 mars 2018

  • A system perspective on the role of pilot and demonstration plants in the transition to a bioeconomy: a synthesis and implications for future research

Hans Hellsmark (Chalmers University)

Séminaire du 19 janvier 2018

  • Biorefineries Models and Policy

James Philp (OECD)

Séminaire du 15 novembre 2017

  • Aide à la décision dans les phases amont d’un projet de bioraffinerie supportée par une optimisation multi-objectifs.
  • Intégration des dimensions de durabilité pour le développement des filières bio-sourcées à l’échelle d’un territoire : une modélisation des scénarios basée sur la dynamique de systèmes.

Mauricio Camargo, Professeur des universités, Directeur de l’action international, ENSGSI (École Nationale Supérieure en Génie des Systèmes et de l’Innovation, Nancy), Laboratoire ERPI (Équipe de Recherche sur les Processus Innovatifs)

  • Les approches « living lab »:  l’exemple de la plateforme LF2L (http://www.lf2l.fr/ ) comme acteur du développement territorial.

Laure Morel, Professeure des universités, ENSGI, Directrice du laboratoire ERPI