IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i10p3392-d171627.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms on a Local Level: Exploring the Determinants of Cultivation Bans

Author

Listed:
  • Ulrich Hartung

    (Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University, Bergheimer Straße 58, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany)

  • Simon Schaub

    (Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University, Bergheimer Straße 58, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany)

Abstract

This study investigates municipalities’ regulatory activities in the field of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) for agricultural use. To explore the determinants of these activities, the case of Germany was selected as in this country, municipalities have legal possibilities to impose local GMO cultivation bans. Using data from 131 local council resolutions, the combination of qualitative and quantitative content analysis shows that, in most cases, no single factors, but a variety of factors lead to regulatory activity. The study reveals that functional motivations to prevent negative socio-economic effects or impacts on the environment or human health are decisive for municipalities’ decisions to regulate. Furthermore, the results of the quantitative analysis unveil that municipalities often refer to both socio-economic reasons and risks for the environment and human health when justifying their decisions. Moreover, the results indicate that local policymakers impose popular cultivation bans to promote their own political success. Finally, the horizontal diffusion of regulations between municipalities, but also vertical diffusion from higher political levels can be observed. Overall, the results of this study on GMOs on a local level further emphasize the importance of analyzing the interdependencies between agroecosystems and socio-economic systems in their full complexity.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3392-:d:171627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3392/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3392/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonas Kathage & Manuel Gómez-Barbero & Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo, 2016. "Framework for assessing the socio-economic impacts of Bt maize cultivation," JRC Research Reports JRC103197, Joint Research Centre.
    2. 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.
    3. Lynn J. Frewer & Susan Miles & Roy Marsh, 2002. "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 701-711, August.
    4. Charles R. Shipan & Craig Volden, 2008. "The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 840-857, October.
    5. Graham, Erin R. & Shipan, Charles R. & Volden, Craig, 2013. "The Diffusion of Policy Diffusion Research in Political Science," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 673-701, July.
    6. Wilhelm Klümper & Matin Qaim, 2014. "A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    7. Georgina Catacora-Vargas & Rosa Binimelis & Anne I. Myhr & Brian Wynne, 2018. "Socio-economic research on genetically modified crops: a study of the literature," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(2), pages 489-513, June.
    8. Robert F. Durant & Jerome S. Legge Jr, 2005. "Public Opinion, Risk Perceptions, and Genetically Modified Food Regulatory Policy," European Union Politics, , vol. 6(2), pages 181-200, June.
    9. Ronald Herring & Robert Paarlberg, 2016. "The Political Economy of Biotechnology," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 397-416, October.
    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. Changxin Yu & Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu, 2019. "Attitude Gaps with Respect to GM Non-Food Crops and GM Food Crops and Confidence in the Government’s Management of Biotechnology: Evidence from Beijing Consumers, Chinese Farmers, Journalists, and Gov," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Jale Tosun & Herman Lelieveldt & Trevelyan S. Wing, 2019. "A Case of ‘Muddling Through’? The Politics of Renewing Glyphosate Authorization in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Vojislava Bursić & Gorica Vuković & Magdalena Cara & Marija Kostić & Tijana Stojanović & Aleksandra Petrović & Nikola Puvača & Dušan Marinković & Bojan Konstantinović, 2021. "Plant Protection Products Residues Assessment in the Organic and Conventional Agricultural Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Beate Friedrich, 2019. "Pathways of Conflict: Lessons from the Cultivation of MON810 in Germany in 2005–2008 for Emerging Conflicts over New Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Katherine H. Tennis & Rachel Sullivan Robinson, 2020. "Where Do Population Policies Come From? Copying in African Fertility and Refugee Policies," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 39(2), pages 175-205, April.
    3. Armin Mertens & Christine Trampusch & Florian Fastenrath & Rebecca Wangemann, 2021. "The political economy of local government financialization and the role of policy diffusion," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 370-387, April.
    4. Youlang Zhang & Hongshan Yang, 2023. "Bureaucratic politics, innovation compatibility, and the dynamic diffusion of subnational decentralization reforms in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(4), pages 553-572, July.
    5. Zilberman, David & Kaplan, Scott & Gordon, Ben, 2018. "The political economy of labeling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 6-13.
    6. Pranpreya Sriwannawit & Ulf Sandström, 2015. "Large-scale bibliometric review of diffusion research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1615-1645, February.
    7. Shahzad Kouser & David J Spielman & Matin Qaim, 2019. "Transgenic cotton and farmers’ health in Pakistan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-19, October.
    8. David Zilberman & Tim G. Holland & Itai Trilnick, 2018. "Agricultural GMOs—What We Know and Where Scientists Disagree," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    9. Peter John, 2018. "Theories of policy change and variation reconsidered: a prospectus for the political economy of public policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(1), pages 1-16, March.
    10. Derek Glasgow & Shuang Zhao & Saatvika Rai, 2021. "Rethinking Climate Change Leadership: An Analysis of the Ambitiousness of State GHG Targets," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(4), pages 398-426, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Yunxiang Zhang & Shichen Wang, 2021. "How does policy innovation diffuse among Chinese local governments? A qualitative comparative analysis of River Chief Innovation," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(1), pages 34-47, February.
    13. Hyunjung Ji & Mark Patrick Tate, 2021. "Spillover effects of central cities on sustainability efforts in a metropolitan area," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 95-121, March.
    14. Byung-Deuk Woo, 2022. "The Impacts of Gender-Related Factors on the Adoption of Anti-Human Trafficking Laws in Sub-Saharan African Countries," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, May.
    15. PK Gupta, 2018. "An Assessment of Relative Risks to Human/Ecological Health Biotech Crops versus Other Human Activities," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 1(2), pages 51-62, February.
    16. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    17. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    18. Alex Jingwei He & Liang Ma, 2020. "Corporate policy entrepreneurship and cross‐boundary strategies: How a private corporation champions mobile healthcare payment innovation in China?," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1), pages 76-86, February.
    19. Grant Lewison, 2007. "The reporting of the risks from genetically modified organisms in the mass media, 2002–2004," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 439-458, September.
    20. Amy Y. Li, 2017. "Covet Thy Neighbor or “Reverse Policy Diffusion”? State Adoption of Performance Funding 2.0," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 58(7), pages 746-771, November.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3392-:d:171627. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.