IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/bzse5.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A conflict of visions: Ideas shaping wildlife trade policy toward African megafauna

Author

Listed:
  • ’t Sas-Rolfes, Michael
  • Gooden, Jennifer Lynn

Abstract

1. Among factors that threaten wild populations of African megafauna, wildlife trade has gained prominence as a global policy issue, with concerted international campaigns aiming to influence the trade of species such as elephants, rhinos, and lions. Trade policy is strongly contested, confounding attempts to develop coherent approaches across jurisdictions and through international mechanisms such as CITES. This undermines conservation efforts. Understanding the drivers of such conflict may help to address this problem. 2. Scholars of political science increasingly recognize the power of ideas as drivers within policy processes. Guided by this literature, we developed an analytical framework and conducted a thematic analysis to examine the ideas driving wildlife trade policy conflict. Our nested case study approach examined debates over trade policy toward African elephants, rhinos, and lions, at two levels: the international policy arena of CITES and within a single country, South Africa. Informed by earlier literature, we tracked the evolution of international trade policy debates over a four-year period (2016–2019) and analysed submissions to a national policy review process in South Africa that took place during 2020. 3. During the study period, state and non-state actors contributed to vigorous trade policy debates within seven key thematic issues across the case study species. Arguments were driven by both cognitive ideas, which specify cause-and-effect relationships, and normative ideas, which are values-based and especially salient elements of anti-trade stances. 4. Fusing these cognitive and normative ideational elements, we identified three distinct over-arching narratives relating to wildlife trade policy. These three narratives align with broader environmental policy and political narratives and elucidate inherent tensions within the CITES arena. They also reveal differing ethical interpretations and perceptions of risk, precaution, and the role of property rights. 5. Policy implications: Wildlife trade policy conflict is driven at least in part by competing ideological visions, which may be entrenched by the CITES Appendix listing system. The structural role of CITES in perpetuating this polarization—and the consequences thereof—warrants further research.

Suggested Citation

  • ’t Sas-Rolfes, Michael & Gooden, Jennifer Lynn, 2023. "A conflict of visions: Ideas shaping wildlife trade policy toward African megafauna," SocArXiv bzse5, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:bzse5
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/bzse5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/648b63a06c098100487d2262/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/bzse5?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. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    2. Charlotte Epstein, 2006. "The Making of Global Environmental Norms: Endangered Species Protection," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 6(2), pages 32-54, May.
    3. Ehsan Masood, 1998. "CITES chief removed in scandal over trade in banned species," Nature, Nature, vol. 394(6689), pages 112-112, July.
    4. Nadelmann, Ethan A., 1990. "Global prohibition regimes: the evolution of norms in international society," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(4), pages 479-526, October.
    5. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    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. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2009. "Comparative historical institutional analysis of German, English and American economics," MPRA Paper 48173, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Maarten Hillebrandt, 2017. "Transparency as a Platform for Institutional Politics: The Case of the Council of the European Union," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(3), pages 62-74.
    3. Casey A. Klofstad & Joseph E. Uscinski & Jennifer M. Connolly & Jonathan P. West, 2019. "What drives people to believe in Zika conspiracy theories?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Michel, Hanno, 2020. "From local to global: The role of knowledge, transfer, and capacity building for successful energy transitions," Discussion Papers, Research Group Digital Mobility and Social Differentiation SP III 2020-603, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    6. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    7. Luis Alfonso Dau & Aya S. Chacar & Marjorie A. Lyles & Jiatao Li, 2022. "Informal institutions and international business: Toward an integrative research agenda," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 985-1010, August.
    8. repec:mje:mjejnl:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:25-70 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Emil Evenhuis, 2017. "Institutional change in cities and regions: a path dependency approach," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(3), pages 509-526.
    10. Sophie Jacquot & Cornelia Woll, 2003. "Usage of European Integration - Europeanisation from a Sociological Perspective," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01019642, HAL.
    11. Streeck, Wolfgang, 2009. "Institutions in history: Bringing capitalism back in," MPIfG Discussion Paper 09/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    12. Morrison, Mark & Duncan, Roderick & Parton, Kevin A., 2013. "Targeting segments in the Australian community to increase support for climate change policy," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 212-217.
    13. Anthony Evans & Willem Sleegers & Žan Mlakar, 2020. "Individual differences in receptivity to scientific bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 401-412, May.
    14. Kaplan Yilmaz, 2017. "China’s OBOR as a Geo-Functional Institutionalist Project," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 7-23, June.
    15. Simon Guy & John Henneberry, 2000. "Understanding Urban Development Processes: Integrating the Economic and the Social in Property Research," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 37(13), pages 2399-2416, December.
    16. Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent & Shannon Hagerman & Robert Kozak, 2018. "What risks matter? Public views about assisted migration and other climate-adaptive reforestation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 573-587, December.
    17. Niamh Hardiman, 2007. "Governing the Economy," Working Papers 200739, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    18. Michal Ovádek, 2021. "Procedural Politics Revisited: Institutional Incentives and Jurisdictional Ambiguity in EU Competence Disputes," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(6), pages 1381-1399, November.
    19. Stroh, Alexander & Elischer, Sebastian & Erdmann, Gero, 2012. "Origins and Outcomes of Electoral Institutions in African Hybrid Regimes: A Comparative Perspective," GIGA Working Papers 197, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    20. Salla Eilola & Lalisa Duguma & Niina Käyhkö & Peter A. Minang, 2021. "Coalitions for Landscape Resilience: Institutional Dynamics behind Community-Based Rangeland Management System in North-Western Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-23, October.
    21. Frisch, L.C. & Mathis, J.T. & Kettle, N.P. & Trainor, S.F., 2015. "Gauging perceptions of ocean acidification in Alaska," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-110.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:bzse5. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.