|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Administration & Society, Vol. 39, No. 8,
907-930 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0095399707307310
Culture and the Democratization of Risk ManagementThe Widening Biotechnology Gap Between Canada and France
Éric Montpetit
Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada
Christian Rouillard
University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
This article considers culture in the explanation of the gap between North America and Europe in the area of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Thanks to a comparison of Canada and France, the article distinguishes between two cultures of GMO risk management: the culture of managerial rationality (Canada) and the culture of integration (France). The first culture provides proponents of scientific neutrality the tools to preserve itself from external criticisms. In contrast, the second culture creates a proper environment for its contestation from within. When the democratization of science became an issue in the 1990s, the culture of integration transformed itself significantly, allowing debates within risk management processes. This change contributed to the gap between Europe and North America over GMOs.
Key Words: political culture • risk management • democracy and risk • biotechnology policy • genetically modified organisms (GMO)
References
- Anderson, I.-E., & Jaeger, B. (1999). Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more Democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy, 26, 331-340. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.[CrossRef]
- Bernauer, T., & Meins, E. (2003). Technological revolution meets policy and the market: Explaining cross-national differences in agricultural biotechnology regulation. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 643-683.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Blondiaux, L., & Sintomer, Y. (2002). L'impératif délibératif [The deliberative imperative]. Politix: Revue des sciences sociales du politique, 15, 17-35.
- Bourdieu, P. (2001). Science de la science et réflexivité [The science of science and reflexivity]. Paris: Éditions Raisons d'agir.
- Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain: Essai sur la démocratie technique [Making decisions in an uncertain world: Essay on technical democracy]. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
- Chevassus-au-Louis, B. (2001). OGM et agriculture: Options pour l'action publique [GMOs and agriculture: Options for decision]. Paris: Rapport du Commissariat général du Plan, La documentation française.
- Deleon, P. (1997). Democracy and the policy sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
- Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley: California University Press.
- Dryzek, J.S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, and contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Dyson, K. (1980). The state tradition in Western Europe. Oxford, UK: Martin Robertson.
- Elkins, D.J., & Simeon, R.E.B. (1979). A cause in search of its effect, or what does political culture explain? Comparative Politics, 11, 127-145.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
- Government of Canada. (1998). The 1998 Canadian biotechnology strategy: An ongoing renewal process. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Secretariat.
- Jasanoff, S. (1995). Product, process, or programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. In M. Bauer (Ed.), Resistance to new technology (pp. 311-331). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223-244.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Joly, P.-B., Assouline, P., Kréziak, D., Lemarie, J., Marris, C., & Roy, A. (2000). L'innovation controversée: Le débat public sur les OGM en France: Rapport du Collectif sur les risques, la décision et l'expertise [The controversial innovation: The public debate on GMOs in France]. Grenoble: INRA.
- Joly, P.-B., & Marris, C. (2001). Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux Etats-Unis. [Have Americans accepted GMOS? A comparative analysis of the construction of GMOs as a collective problem in France and in the United States]. Paper prepared for the conference Risques collectifs et situation de crise, Paris, CNRS.
- Joss, S. (1999). Public participation in science and technology policy and decision-making: Ephemeral phenomenon or lasting change? Science and Public Policy, 26, 290-293.[CrossRef]
- Leiss, W. (2003). How Canada's stumbles with environmental risk management reflect an integrity gap. In E. Lee & A. Perl (Eds.), The integrity gap: Canada's environmental policy and institutions (pp. 25-41). Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.
- Leiss, W., & Tyshenko, M. (2002). Some aspects of the "new biotechnology" and its regulation in Canada. In D. L. Vannijnatten & R. Boardman (Eds.), Canadian environmental policy: Context and cases (pp. 321-343). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Marris, C., & Joly, P.-B. (1999). La gouvernance technocratique par consultation? Interrogation sur la première conférence de citoyens en France [The technocratic governance of consultations: Questions about the First Citizen's Conference in France]. Les Cahiers de la Sécurité Intérieure, 38, 97-124.
- Montpetit, É. (2003). Misplaced distrust: Policy networks and the environment in France, the United States and Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.
- Montpetit, É. (2005). A policy network explanation of biotechnology policy differences between the United States and Canada. Journal of Public Policy, 25, 339-366.[CrossRef]
- Montpetit, É., Rothmayr, C., & Varone F. (Eds.). (2007). The politics of biotechnology in North America and Europe. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
- Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
- Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Roy, A. (2001). Les experts face au risque: Le cas des plantes transgéniques. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
- Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236, 280-285.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273-286.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Thelen, K. (2004). How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Vogel, D. (2002). Ships passing in the night: GMOs and the politics of risk regulation in Europe and the United States. Working paper of the Centre for the Management of Environmental Resources.
- Wedeen, L. (2002). Conceptualizing culture: Possibilities for political science. American Political Science Review, 96, 713-728.[ISI]
- Yarrow, S. (2001, May). Environmental assessment of the products of plant biotechnology. Article published in the proceedings of the conference Food of the Future: Genetically Modified Foods, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
|
