Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rimkutė, Dovilė
Data de Publicação: 2015
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i1.82
Resumo: Despite the growing importance of EU regulatory agencies in European decision-making, academic literature is missing a systematic explanation of how regulatory agencies actually contend with their core tasks of providing scientific advice to EU institutions. The article contributes to the theoretical explanation of when and under what conditions different uses of scientific expertise prevail. In particular, it focuses on theoretical explanations leading to strategic substantiating use of expertise followed by an empirical analysis of single case research. Substantiating expertise use refers to those practices in which an organisation seeks to promote and justify its predetermined preferences, which are based on certain values, political or economic interests. Empirical findings are discussed in the light of the theoretical expectations derived by streamlining and combining the main arguments of classical organisational and institutional theories and recent academic research. Process-tracing techniques are applied to investigate the process by which an EU regulation restricting the use of neonicotinoid pesticides (European Commission, 2013) was developed. The empirical analysis combines a variety of data sources including official documents, press releases, scientific outputs, and semi-structured interviews with the academic and industry experts involved in the process. The study finds that the interaction between high external pressure and high internal capacity leads to the strategic substantiating use of expertise, in which scientific evidence is used to promote the inclinations of actors upon which the agency depends most.
id RCAP_4cd75dd1bcc330198fa019ba3cf3d82e
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/82
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticidesbee health; EU Regulation; European Commission; European Food Safety Authority; neonicotinoid pesticides; risk assessment; scientific expertiseDespite the growing importance of EU regulatory agencies in European decision-making, academic literature is missing a systematic explanation of how regulatory agencies actually contend with their core tasks of providing scientific advice to EU institutions. The article contributes to the theoretical explanation of when and under what conditions different uses of scientific expertise prevail. In particular, it focuses on theoretical explanations leading to strategic substantiating use of expertise followed by an empirical analysis of single case research. Substantiating expertise use refers to those practices in which an organisation seeks to promote and justify its predetermined preferences, which are based on certain values, political or economic interests. Empirical findings are discussed in the light of the theoretical expectations derived by streamlining and combining the main arguments of classical organisational and institutional theories and recent academic research. Process-tracing techniques are applied to investigate the process by which an EU regulation restricting the use of neonicotinoid pesticides (European Commission, 2013) was developed. The empirical analysis combines a variety of data sources including official documents, press releases, scientific outputs, and semi-structured interviews with the academic and industry experts involved in the process. The study finds that the interaction between high external pressure and high internal capacity leads to the strategic substantiating use of expertise, in which scientific evidence is used to promote the inclinations of actors upon which the agency depends most.Cogitatio2015-03-31info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i1.82oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/82Politics and Governance; Vol 3, No 1 (2015): The Role of Expert Knowledge in EU Executive Institutions; 114-1272183-2463reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/82https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i1.82https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/82/82http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRimkutė, Dovilė2022-12-22T15:16:26Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/82Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:22:23.212673Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides
title Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides
spellingShingle Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides
Rimkutė, Dovilė
bee health; EU Regulation; European Commission; European Food Safety Authority; neonicotinoid pesticides; risk assessment; scientific expertise
title_short Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides
title_full Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides
title_fullStr Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides
title_full_unstemmed Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides
title_sort Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides
author Rimkutė, Dovilė
author_facet Rimkutė, Dovilė
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Rimkutė, Dovilė
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv bee health; EU Regulation; European Commission; European Food Safety Authority; neonicotinoid pesticides; risk assessment; scientific expertise
topic bee health; EU Regulation; European Commission; European Food Safety Authority; neonicotinoid pesticides; risk assessment; scientific expertise
description Despite the growing importance of EU regulatory agencies in European decision-making, academic literature is missing a systematic explanation of how regulatory agencies actually contend with their core tasks of providing scientific advice to EU institutions. The article contributes to the theoretical explanation of when and under what conditions different uses of scientific expertise prevail. In particular, it focuses on theoretical explanations leading to strategic substantiating use of expertise followed by an empirical analysis of single case research. Substantiating expertise use refers to those practices in which an organisation seeks to promote and justify its predetermined preferences, which are based on certain values, political or economic interests. Empirical findings are discussed in the light of the theoretical expectations derived by streamlining and combining the main arguments of classical organisational and institutional theories and recent academic research. Process-tracing techniques are applied to investigate the process by which an EU regulation restricting the use of neonicotinoid pesticides (European Commission, 2013) was developed. The empirical analysis combines a variety of data sources including official documents, press releases, scientific outputs, and semi-structured interviews with the academic and industry experts involved in the process. The study finds that the interaction between high external pressure and high internal capacity leads to the strategic substantiating use of expertise, in which scientific evidence is used to promote the inclinations of actors upon which the agency depends most.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-03-31
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i1.82
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/82
url https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i1.82
identifier_str_mv oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/82
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/82
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i1.82
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/82/82
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Politics and Governance; Vol 3, No 1 (2015): The Role of Expert Knowledge in EU Executive Institutions; 114-127
2183-2463
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130669570326528