IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v36y2019i3p296-317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Values Shape Program Perceptions: The “Organic Ethos” and Producers’ Assessments of U.S. Organic Policy Impacts

Author

Listed:
  • David P. Carter
  • Samatha L. Mosier
  • Ian T. Adams

Abstract

Among the more recognizable programs related to natural and sustainable food is the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program. Although the robustness of the organic food market is difficult to contest, many debate the extent to which U.S. organic policy outcomes adequately serve consumers and the organic agriculture producers they rely on. This paper engages the debate from the perspective of certified organic producers. Drawing on the results of a nationwide survey of USDA‐certified producers, we first provide a snapshot of how producers assess the environmental, consumer, and market impacts of U.S. organic food policy. We then examine the extent to which organic producers’ policy impact perceptions are associated with their alignment with an “organic ethos”—understood as producers’ commitment to core organic principles and the organic movement. The paper highlights producers’ values as perceptual filters and cognitive mechanisms that help shape producers’ policy impacts perceptions, illustrating a contributing factor to the enduring nature of organic policy debates. 价值观如何影响对计划的看法:“有机宗旨”和生产者对美国有机政策影响的评估 美国农业部的国家有机计划是与自然和可持续食品有关的众多受认可计划之一。尽管有机食品市场的稳健性难以争论,但许多辩论有关于美国有机政策结果能在多大程度上充分服务消费者和其所依赖的有机农业生产者。本文以获得有机认证的生产者的角度参与了这一辩论。通过使用全国范围内对美国农业部有机认证生产者的调查结果,笔者首先简要说明了生产者如何评估美国有机食品政策对环境、消费者和市场所造成的影响。笔者随后检验了有机生产者对政策影响的看法在多大程度上和他们对“有机宗旨”的遵循有关。此宗旨被认为是生产者对核心有机准则和有机运动的承诺。本文强调了有机生产者的价值观,将该价值观视为能决定生产者对政策影响的看法的观念过滤器和认知机制,同时阐述了一个因素,用于解释有机政策辩论的持久性。 Cómo los valores forman las percepciones de un programa: las evaluaciones del ethos orgánico y de los productores de los impactos de la política orgánica de EE.UU. Entre los programas más reconocibles relacionados con alimentos naturales y sostenibles se encuentra el Programa Nacional Orgánico del Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos. Aunque la solidez del mercado de alimentos orgánicos es difícil de impugnar, muchos debaten en qué medida los resultados de la política orgánica de los Estados Unidos sirven de manera adecuada a los consumidores y a los productores de agricultura orgánica de los que dependen. Este documento aborda el debate desde la perspectiva de los productores orgánicos certificados. Basándonos en los resultados de una encuesta a nivel nacional de productores certificados por el USDA, primero proporcionamos una visión general de cómo los productores evalúan los impactos ambientales, de consumo y de mercado de la política de alimentos orgánicos de EE. UU. Luego examinamos hasta qué punto las percepciones de impacto de la política de los productores orgánicos se asocian con su alineación con una "ética orgánica", entendida como el compromiso de los productores con los principios orgánicos fundamentales y el movimiento orgánico. El documento destaca los valores de los productores como filtros de percepción y mecanismos cognitivos que ayudan a configurar las percepciones de los impactos de las políticas de los productores, ilustrando un factor que contribuye a la naturaleza duradera de los debates sobre políticas orgánicas.

Suggested Citation

  • David P. Carter & Samatha L. Mosier & Ian T. Adams, 2019. "How Values Shape Program Perceptions: The “Organic Ethos” and Producers’ Assessments of U.S. Organic Policy Impacts," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 36(3), pages 296-317, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:36:y:2019:i:3:p:296-317
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12330
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12330
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12330?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
    ---><---

    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:36:y:2019:i:3:p:296-317. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.