Figure 1 . Ecosystem for Change KVR ( Modified from Gorddard et al , 2016 )
2 . There is a risk of suboptimal outcomes due to only a few key decision-makers being involved , giving insufficient alternative analysis or world views ;
3 . Very few public , or private , organisations have the embedded competencies to effectively design networks that inclusively satisfy the vested-interests of the economic stakeholders that largely drive investment and success ;
4 . Plans translate into results only when businesses invest and this approach largely excludes business participation in network design and can alienate business leaders . The fortunes of investors are determined by decisions that cannot be controlled and consequently these strategies often require higher financial inducements to encourage investment .
The bottom-up approach , unsurprisingly , exhibits strengths that counter the weaknesses of a top-down approach ( Healey , 1997 ). These elements also apply to circular economy network design :
1 . It encourages participation of businesses in the creation of a circular economy network , including the companies that will ultimately create jobs and economic growth , allowing for better inclusiveness of the needs and capabilities of corporate and not-for profit organisations ;
2 . Competition is enhanced as businesses vie for strategic positioning within the circular economy network ;
3 . The organic evolution leads to a degree of overlap , enhancing competition and the resilience of the network ;
4 . It encourages the participation and development of local businesses , which typically have a better sense of community needs and which enhances economic returns to the community , while attenuating dissent ; and
5 . It builds adaptive capacity as actors learn to work together , ensuring that the network is more resilient in the face of change .
However , the bottom-up approach is far from a panacea to effective planning ( Pissourios , 2014 ). It too has weaknesses that can be extrapolated to circular economy network building :
1 . The decentralised nature is complicated by the elevated participation of stakeholders , delaying development as businesses vie for positions within the circular economy network and delay investment implementation ;
2 . The process can also create gaps in critical circular economy network functions . Money flows to profitable investments , so activities that are profitable can be competitively oversubscribed , with less profitable activities having less market interest or are even altogether neglected . Highly important activities such as information provision or marketplace services might not find investment support ; and
3 . Amidst intense competition , the seamless integration of economic activity that is necessary to support effective circular economy networks becomes more difficult to achieve .
Given both the top-down and bottom-up approaches to circular economy planning exhibit pros and cons , synthesised iterative approaches have been investigated for decades ( Sabatier , 1986 ). In order to synthesise an effective circular economy strategy , experience and research findings suggest that three guiding principles should govern .
Firstly , include planning participation to the greatest extent possible . An ongoing developmental dialogue should take place involving industry , technology providers , academia , not-for-profit organisations , civil society and public officials . The process
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL 13 NO 2 2020 09