IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v37y2020i1p92-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inside Lobbying on the Regulation of New Plant Breeding Techniques in the European Union: Determinants of Venue Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Ulrich Hartung

Abstract

In July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union decided that new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) fall within the scope of the restrictive provisions on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Previously, various actors had lobbied in order to influence the European Union’s (EU’s) regulatory decision on NPBTs. This study examines the venue choices taken by Cibus, a biotech company that promoted NPBT deregulation. It shows that the firm bypassed the EU level and that it lobbied competent authorities (CAs) in certain member states to gain support for the deregulation of NPBTs. Cibus chose the CAs because their institutional “closedness” reduced the risk of the debate over the deregulation of NPBTs becoming public. However, the CA’s specific competences and their influence on EU decision making were of likewise importance. The firm lobbied CAs based in Finland, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Two factors appear to have influenced Cibus’ choices for these countries: high‐level political support for agribiotech and the high relevance of biotech sectors. In contrast, public support for GMOs turned out to have hardly any influence, and virtually no association could be observed for the agricultural application of biotechnology in the past nor for the weakness of domestic anti‐GMO lobby groups. Finally, the in‐depth study on Germany affirms that “closedness” was important for Cibus’ choices and reveals that technical information served as a venue‐internal factor that influenced the firm’s choices. 就新植物育种技术规制对欧盟进行内部游说:场地选择的决定因素 2018年6月,欧盟法院决定将新的植物育种技术(NPBTs)纳入转基因(GMOs)限制性条款。此前,不同行动者就此进行游说,以期影响欧盟对NPBTs的监管决策。本文检验了Cibus(一家提倡对NPBT放松管制的生物技术公司)的游说场地选择。事实表明,这家公司避开了欧盟的规制,并在部分成员国中对相关部门(CAs)进行游说,以期在NPBTs放松管制一事上获得支持。Cibus选择了CAs,因为后者的制度“封闭性”(closedness)降低了相关辩论被公开的风险。然而,CA的特定能力及其对欧盟决策产生的影响也具有同等的重要性。Cibus对芬兰、德国、爱尔兰、瑞典、西班牙和英国的相关部门进行了游说。两个因素似乎影响了Cibus对这些国家的选择:对农业生物技术的高度政治支持和生物技术部门的高度相关性。相反,公众对GMOs的支持几乎没有产生任何影响,并且不论是以往生物技术的农业文化应用或是国内反GMO游说团体的弱点,基本上都不存在任何联盟。最终,对德国的深度研究证实,“封闭性”对Cibus的选择至关重要,并且技术信息充当了一个对公司选择造成影响的内部场地因素。 Cabildeo interno sobre la regulación de nuevas técnicas de fitomejoramiento en la Unión Europea: determinantes de lugares para eventos En julio de 2018, el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea decidió que las nuevas técnicas de fitomejoramiento (NPBT) están dentro del alcance de las disposiciones restrictivas sobre organismos genéticamente modificados (OGM). Anteriormente, varios actores habían cabildeado para influir en la decisión reguladora de la Unión Europea (UE) sobre NPBT. Este estudio examina las opciones de lugar tomadas por Cibus, una compañía de biotecnología que promovió la desregulación de NPBT. Muestra que la empresa pasó por alto el nivel de la UE y presionó a las autoridades competentes (CA) en ciertos estados miembros para obtener apoyo para la desregulación de las NPBT. Cibus eligió a las AC porque su "cerramiento" institucional redujo el riesgo del debate sobre la desregulación de las NPBT que se hacen públicas. Sin embargo, las competencias específicas de la AC y su influencia en la toma de decisiones de la UE fueron igualmente importantes. La firma presionó a las AC con sede en Finlandia, Alemania, Irlanda, Suecia, España y el Reino Unido. Dos factores parecen haber influido en las elecciones de Cibus para estos países: el apoyo político de alto nivel para la agrobiotecnología y la gran relevancia de los sectores biotecnológicos. En contraste, el apoyo público a los OGM resultó tener poca influencia, y prácticamente no se pudo observar ninguna asociación para la aplicación agrícola de la biotecnología en el pasado ni para la debilidad de los grupos de presión nacionales anti‐OGM. Finalmente, el estudio en profundidad sobre Alemania afirma que la "cercanía" era importante para las elecciones de Cibus y revela que la información técnica sirvió como un factor interno del lugar que influyó en las elecciones de la empresa.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulrich Hartung, 2020. "Inside Lobbying on the Regulation of New Plant Breeding Techniques in the European Union: Determinants of Venue Choices," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 92-114, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:1:p:92-114
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12366
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12366
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12366?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaron J. Ley, 2016. "Vested Interests, Venue Shopping, and Policy Stability: The Long Road to Improving Air Quality in Oregon's Willamette Valley," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(5), pages 506-525, September.
    2. Weaver, R. Kent, 1986. "The Politics of Blame Avoidance," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 371-398, October.
    3. Georg Wenzelburger & Pascal D. König, 2017. "Different by Design? Analyzing How Governments Justify GMO Liberalization through the Lens of Strategic Communication," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(3), pages 331-356, June.
    4. Jerome S. Legge Jr. & Robert F. Durant, 2010. "Public Opinion, Risk Assessment, and Biotechnology: Lessons from Attitudes toward Genetically Modified Foods in the European Union," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(1), pages 59-76, January.
    5. John Constantelos, 2010. "Playing the Field: Federalism and the Politics of Venue Shopping in the United States and Canada," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 40(3), pages 460-483, Summer.
    6. Muhlbock, Monika & Tosun, Jale, 2015. "Deciding over controversial issues: Voting behavior in the Council and the European Parliament on genetically modified organisms," GMCC-15: Seventh GMCC, November 17-20, 2015, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 211480, International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and non-GM based Agricultural Supply Chains (GMCC).
    7. Pralle, Sarah B., 2003. "Venue Shopping, Political Strategy, and Policy Change: The Internationalization of Canadian Forest Advocacy," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 233-260, September.
    8. Ronald Herring & Robert Paarlberg, 2016. "The Political Economy of Biotechnology," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 397-416, October.
    9. Jale Tosun & Simon Schaub, 2017. "Mobilization in the European Public Sphere: The Struggle Over Genetically Modified Organisms," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(3), pages 310-330, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Livia Johannesson & Noomi Weinryb, 2021. "How to blame and make a difference: perceived responsibility and policy consequences in two Swedish pro-migrant campaigns," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 41-62, March.
    2. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin & Zhonghua Li, 2020. "Determinants of Firm‐Level Lobbying and Government Responsiveness in Agricultural Biotechnology in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(2), pages 201-220, March.
    3. Jale Tosun, 2017. "On the sustained importance of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits in policy studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 563-572, December.
    4. Nicole Lemke & Philipp Trein & Frédéric Varone, 2023. "Agenda-setting in nascent policy subsystems: issue and instrument priorities across venues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 633-655, December.
    5. Ulrich Hartung & Simon Schaub, 2018. "The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms on a Local Level: Exploring the Determinants of Cultivation Bans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Adam Thorn, 2018. "Issue definition and conflict expansion: the role of risk to human health as an issue definition strategy in an environmental conflict," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(1), pages 59-76, March.
    7. Anders Gustafsson, 2019. "Busy doing nothing: why politicians implement inefficient policies," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 282-299, September.
    8. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    10. Sofia Vasilopoulou & Daphne Halikiopoulou & Theofanis Exadaktylos, 2014. "Greece in Crisis: Austerity, Populism and the Politics of Blame," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 388-402, March.
    11. Christopher Pallas & Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "NGO monitoring and the legitimacy of international cooperation: A strategic analysis," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, March.
    12. Schimank, Uwe & Stucke, Andreas (ed.), 1994. "Coping with Trouble: How Science Reacts to Political Disturbances of Research Conditions," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 14, number 14.
    13. Castellari, Elena & Soregaroli, Claudio & Venus, Thomas J. & Wesseler, Justus, 2018. "Food processor and retailer non-GMO standards in the US and EU and the driving role of regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-37.
    14. Sten Hansson, 2018. "The discursive micro-politics of blame avoidance: unpacking the language of government blame games," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(4), pages 545-564, December.
    15. Marijn Faling & Robbert Biesbroek, 2019. "Cross-boundary policy entrepreneurship for climate-smart agriculture in Kenya," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(4), pages 525-547, December.
    16. Zohlnhöfer, Reimut, 1999. "Der lange Schatten der schönen Illusion: Finanzpolitik nach der deutschen Einheit, 1990 - 1998," Working papers of the ZeS 09/1999, University of Bremen, Centre for Social Policy Research (ZeS).
    17. Argenton, Cédric & Potters, Jan & Yang, Yadi, 2023. "Receiving credit: On delegation and responsibility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    18. Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
    19. Yoshio Iida & Christiane Schwieren, 2016. "Contributing for Myself, but Free riding for My Group?," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(1), pages 36-47, February.
    20. Daniel Beland & Patrik Marier, 2004. "The Politics of Protest Avoidance: Policy Windows, Labor Mobilization, and Pension Reform in France," Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Papers 114, McMaster University.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:1:p:92-114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.