IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v34y2017i3d10.1007_s10460-016-9764-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Amy A. Quark

    (The College of William & Mary)

  • Rachel Lienesch

    (Public Religion Research Institute)

Abstract

What role do science and scientists play in the transition between food regimes? Scientific communities are integral to understanding political struggle during food regime transitions in part due to the broader scientization of politics since the late 1800s. While social movements contest the rules of the game in explicitly value-laden terms, scientific communities make claims to the truth based on boundary work, or efforts to mark some science and scientists as legitimate while marking others as illegitimate. In doing so, scientific communities attempt to establish and maintain the privileged position of science in contests over policy. In this paper, we situate scientific boundary work within its world historical context in order to ask two key questions: (1) how does scientific boundary work vary across food regimes; and, in turn, (2) what role does scientific boundary work play in the political contestation that drives transitions between food regimes? We explore these questions through the case of one scientific community—the AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Communities)—involved in food safety regulation across the British, US, and corporate food regimes. We argue that scientific boundary work is shaped by historically specific patterns of social conflict within food regimes and, in particular, the double-movement dynamics that Polanyi (The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our times. Boston: Beacon, 1957[1944]) theorizes. Moreover, as scientific communities reconstruct their internal rules, norms, and procedures to claim their own legitimacy in relation to prevailing forms of social conflict, they also reshape who sets scientific agendas and thus the knowledge available for making new rules within periods of food regime transition. To elaborate this argument in theoretical terms, we build on recent efforts to integrate a neo-Polanyian perspective into food regime analysis and link this to research on scientific boundary work by scholars in science and technology studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Amy A. Quark & Rachel Lienesch, 2017. "Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 645-661, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:34:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10460-016-9764-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-016-9764-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-016-9764-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-016-9764-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruggie, John Gerard, 1982. "International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 379-415, April.
    2. Paul Ingenbleek & Matthew T.G. Meulenberg, 2006. "The battle between “good” and “better”: A strategic marketing perspective on codes of conduct for sustainable agriculture," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 451-473.
    3. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-35, January.
    4. D. Linda Garcia, 1992. "Standard setting in the United States: Public and private sector roles," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(8), pages 531-537, September.
    5. Jane Dixon, 2009. "From the imperial to the empty calorie: how nutrition relations underpin food regime transitions," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 26(4), pages 321-333, December.
    6. Fred Block, 2007. "Understanding the Diverging Trajectories of the United States and Western Europe: A Neo-Polanyian Analysis," Politics & Society, , vol. 35(1), pages 3-33, March.
    7. Freidberg, Susanne, 2004. "French Beans and Food Scares: Culture and Commerce in an Anxious Age," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195169614.
    8. Daniel Kleinman & Abby Kinchy, 2007. "Against the neoliberal steamroller? The Biosafety Protocol and the social regulation of agricultural biotechnologies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(2), pages 195-206, June.
    9. Apoorva Mandavilli, 2007. "A breath of fresh air," Nature, Nature, vol. 445(7129), pages 706-708, February.
    10. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Walid Mukahhal & Gumataw Kifle Abebe & Rachel A. Bahn, 2022. "Opportunities and Challenges for Lebanese Horticultural Producers Linked to Corporate Buyers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, April.

    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. Bernard Hoekman & Douglas Nelson, 2020. "Rethinking international subsidy rules," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 3104-3132, December.
    2. Nelson, Douglas, 2021. "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria? US – Countervailing Measures (China) (21.5)," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 556-565, October.
    3. Abby Kinchy, 2010. "Anti-genetic engineering activism and scientized politics in the case of “contaminated” Mexican maize," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(4), pages 505-517, December.
    4. Bernard M. Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis & Douglas R. Nelson, 2023. "Geopolitical competition, globalisation and WTO reform," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 1163-1188, May.
    5. Johan Christensen, 2018. "Economic knowledge and the scientization of policy advice," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 291-311, September.
    6. Jarle Trondal & Zuzana Murdoch & Benny Geys, 2015. "Representative Bureaucracy and the Role of Expertise in Politics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 26-36.
    7. Claude Paraponaris, 2017. "Plateformes numériques, conception ouverte et emploi," Post-Print halshs-01614430, HAL.
    8. Dani Rodrik, 2018. "Populism and the economics of globalization," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 12-33, June.
    9. Andrew B. Whitford & Derrick Anderson, 2021. "Governance landscapes for emerging technologies: The case of cryptocurrencies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1053-1070, October.
    10. Eichengreen, Barry & Ghironi, Fabio, 1997. "European Monetary Unification and International Monetary Cooperation," Center for International and Development Economics Research, Working Paper Series qt10d518tg, Center for International and Development Economics Research, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    11. Jeanie Bukowski, 2017. "A “new water culture†on the Iberian Peninsula? Evaluating epistemic community impact on water resources management policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 239-264, March.
    12. Vigvári, Gábor, 2022. "Transzformáció és a populizmus a visegrádi országokban [Transformation and populism in the V4 countries]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 339-366.
    13. Mateos-Garcia, Juan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2008. "The institutions of open source software: Examining the Debian community," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 333-344, December.
    14. Catherine Long, 2017. "Delegated Service Authority: Institutional Evolution of PEPFAR Health-Based Program Implementing Units in Tanzania," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(3), pages 303-312, September.
    15. Cohen, Joseph N., 2008. "Managing the Faustian bargain: monetary autonomy in the pursuit of development in Eastern Europe and Latin America," MPRA Paper 22435, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Alexander Kentikelenis & Erik Voeten, 2021. "Legitimacy challenges to the liberal world order: Evidence from United Nations speeches, 1970–2018," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 721-754, October.
    17. Nathan Jensen, 2007. "International institutions and market expectations: Stock price responses to the WTO ruling on the 2002 U.S. steel tariffs," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 261-280, September.
    18. Federico Maria Ferrara & Jörg S Haas & Andrew Peterson & Thomas Sattler, 2022. "Exports vs. Investment: How Public Discourse Shapes Support for External Imbalances," Post-Print hal-02569351, HAL.
    19. Michelle Egan, 2019. "EU Single Market(s) after Brexit," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 19-29.
    20. Sandberg, Kristin Ingstad & Andresen, Steinar & Bjune, Gunnar, 2010. "A new approach to global health institutions? A case study of new vaccine introduction and the formation of the GAVI Alliance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1349-1356, October.

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:34:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10460-016-9764-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.