Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides

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 theoretica...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Dovilė Rimkutė
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Cogitatio 2015-03-01
Series:Politics and Governance
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/82
id doaj-e0176acc13f84a83a769ffa0dd36fe94
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e0176acc13f84a83a769ffa0dd36fe942020-11-24T22:52:32ZengCogitatioPolitics and Governance2183-24632015-03-013111412710.17645/pag.v3i1.82115Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of PesticidesDovilė Rimkutė0Geschwister-Scholl-Institut of Political Science (GSI), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, GermanyDespite 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.https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/82bee healthEU RegulationEuropean CommissionEuropean Food Safety Authorityneonicotinoid pesticidesrisk assessmentscientific expertise
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Dovilė Rimkutė
spellingShingle Dovilė Rimkutė
Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides
Politics and Governance
bee health
EU Regulation
European Commission
European Food Safety Authority
neonicotinoid pesticides
risk assessment
scientific expertise
author_facet Dovilė Rimkutė
author_sort Dovilė Rimkutė
title Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides
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
publisher Cogitatio
series Politics and Governance
issn 2183-2463
publishDate 2015-03-01
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.
topic bee health
EU Regulation
European Commission
European Food Safety Authority
neonicotinoid pesticides
risk assessment
scientific expertise
url https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/82
work_keys_str_mv AT dovilerimkute explainingdifferencesinscientificexpertiseusethepoliticsofpesticides
_version_ 1725665633207582720