IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v36y2019i4d10.1007_s10460-019-09934-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to include socio-economic considerations in decision-making on agricultural biotechnology? Two models from Kenya and South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Koen Beumer

    (Utrecht University
    University of Groningen)

Abstract

This article contributes to the debate about how regulatory science for agricultural technologies can be ‘opened up’ for a more diverse set of concerns and knowledges. The article focuses on the regulation of ‘socio-economic considerations’ for genetically modified organisms. While numerous countries have declared their intent to include these considerations in biotechnology decision-making, it is currently unclear both what counts as a socio-economic consideration and how such considerations should be assessed. This article provides greater clarity about how socio-economic considerations can be included in regulations by drawing upon the experience of two countries whose efforts in this field are particularly advanced: Kenya and South Africa. Based on extensive fieldwork, this article identifies the contours of an emerging regulatory regime by presenting two practice-based models for including socio-economic considerations in biotechnology decision-making. Whereas Kenya has taken a bottom-up process prior to assessing the first technologies and strongly emphasises scientific expertise, South Africa has instead established regulatory standards in an ad hoc fashion on a case-to-case basis, with a less prominent role for scientific evidence. The discussion of the distinct characteristics and tensions of both models provides insight into two potential pathways for including socio-economic considerations in the regulation of agricultural technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Koen Beumer, 2019. "How to include socio-economic considerations in decision-making on agricultural biotechnology? Two models from Kenya and South Africa," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 669-684, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:36:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-019-09934-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-019-09934-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-019-09934-1
    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/s10460-019-09934-1?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. Joanna Chataway & Joyce Tait, 1993. "Is risk regulation a strategic influence on decision making in the biotechnology industry?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 10(2), pages 60-67, March.
    2. Rosa Binimelis & Anne Ingeborg Myhr, 2016. "Inclusion and Implementation of Socio-Economic Considerations in GMO Regulations: Needs and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    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. Gerard de Vries & Imrat Verhoeven & Martin Boeckhout, 2011. "Taming uncertainty: the WRR approach to risk governance," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 485-499, April.
    5. Jose Benjamin Falck‐Zepeda & Patricia Zambrano, 2011. "Socio‐economic Considerations in Biosafety and Biotechnology Decision Making: The Cartagena Protocol and National Biosafety Frameworks," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 28(2), pages 171-195, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Karinne Ludlow & Stuart J. Smyth & José Falck-Zepeda (ed.), 2014. "Socio-Economic Considerations in Biotechnology Regulation," Natural Resource Management and Policy, Springer, edition 127, number 978-1-4614-9440-9, December.
    8. Les Levidow & Susan Carr, 1997. "How biotechnology regulation sets a risk/ethics boundary," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 29-43, March.
    9. Kuhlmann, Stefan & Stegmaier, Peter & Konrad, Kornelia, 2019. "The tentative governance of emerging science and technology—A conceptual introduction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1091-1097.
    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. Rosa Binimelis & Anne Ingeborg Myhr, 2016. "Inclusion and Implementation of Socio-Economic Considerations in GMO Regulations: Needs and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Amaranta Herrero & Fern Wickson & Rosa Binimelis, 2015. "Seeing GMOs from a Systems Perspective: The Need for Comparative Cartographies of Agri/Cultures for Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-24, August.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Malte Hückstädt, 2022. "Coopetition between frenemies–interrelations and effects of seven collaboration problems in research clusters," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5191-5224, September.
    6. Lyall, Catherine & Tait, Joyce, 2019. "Beyond the limits to governance: New rules of engagement for the tentative governance of the life sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1128-1137.
    7. Shuo Xu & Liyuan Hao & Xin An & Hongshen Pang & Ting Li, 2020. "Review on emerging research topics with key-route main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 607-624, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Inga Ulnicane & William Knight & Tonii Leach & Bernd Carsten Stahl & Winter-Gladys Wanjiku, 2021. "Framing governance for a contested emerging technology:insights from AI policy [The next space race is Artificial Intelligence]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(2), pages 158-177.
    10. Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M. & Wentland, Alexander & Ruge, Luise, 2023. "Understanding regional innovation cultures: Narratives, directionality, and conservative innovation in Bavaria," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    11. Jaung, Wanggi, 2022. "Digital forest recreation in the metaverse: Opportunities and challenges," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    12. William Lacy, 2023. "Local food systems, citizen and public science, empowered communities, and democracy: hopes deserving to live," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 1-17, March.
    13. Clare Gupta, 2018. "Contested fields: an analysis of anti-GMO politics on Hawai’i Island," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 181-192, March.
    14. Iris Wanzenböck & Joeri H Wesseling & Koen Frenken & Marko P Hekkert & K Matthias Weber, 0. "A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: Alternative pathways through the problem–solution space," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 474-489.
    15. Steven Haggblade & Melinda Smale & Alpha Kergna & Veronique Theriault & Amidou Assima, 2017. "Causes and Consequences of Increasing Herbicide Use in Mali," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(3), pages 648-674, July.
    16. Tatiana Iakovleva & Elin Oftedal & John Bessant, 2021. "Changing Role of Users—Innovating Responsibly in Digital Health," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    17. 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.
    18. Sigfrid Kjeldaas & Trine Antonsen & Sarah Hartley & Anne Ingeborg Myhr, 2021. "Public Consultation on Proposed Revisions to Norway’s Gene Technology Act: An Analysis of the Consultation Framing, Stakeholder Concerns, and the Integration of Non-Safety Considerations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-25, July.
    19. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    20. Stuart Hogarth & Paul Martin, 2021. "The ratio of vision to data: Promoting emergent science and technologies through promissory regulation, the case of the FDA and personalised medicine," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 969-986, July.

    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:36:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-019-09934-1. 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.