IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v3y2015i1p114-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides

Author

Listed:
  • Dovilė Rimkutė

    (Geschwister-Scholl-Institut of Political Science (GSI), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Dovilė Rimkutė, 2015. "Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 114-127.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v3:y:2015:i:1:p:114-127
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v3i1.82
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/82
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v3i1.82?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. Christina Boswell, 2009. "Knowledge, Legitimation and the Politics of Risk: The Functions of Research in Public Debates on Migration," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(1), pages 165-186, March.
    2. Christina Boswell, 2009. "Knowledge, Legitimation and the Politics of Risk: The Functions of Research in Public Debates on Migration," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57, pages 165-186, March.
    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. Åse Gornitzka & Cathrine Holst, 2015. "The Expert-Executive Nexus in the EU: An Introduction," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-12.
    2. Torbjørg Jevnaker & Barbara Saerbeck, 2019. "EU Agencies and the Energy Union: Providing Useful Information to the Commission?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 60-69.

    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. Cynthia Couette, 2024. "Epistemic competition in global governance: The case of pharmaceutical patents," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(3), pages 516-527, June.
    2. H鲩court & Spielvogel, 2014. "Beliefs, media exposure and policy preferences on immigration: evidence from Europe," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(2), pages 225-239, January.
    3. Jean Philippe Décieux, 2021. "The Dialectic of Transnational Integration and National Disintegration as Challenge for Multilevel Governance," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-11, July.
    4. repec:sae:envval:v:25:y:2016:i:6:p:687-705 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Laura Wolton & Deserai A. Crow, 2022. "Politicking with evidence: examining evidence-based issues in electoral policy narratives," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(4), pages 661-691, December.
    6. Dorren, Lars & Van Dooren, Wouter, 2021. "Chameleonic knowledge: a study of ex ante analysis in large infrastructure policy processes," SocArXiv 2shq9, Center for Open Science.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/9773 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Sam Scott, 2017. "Venues and Filters in Managed Migration Policy: The Case of the United Kingdom," International Migration Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 375-415, June.
    9. H鲩court & Spielvogel, 2014. "Beliefs, media exposure and policy preferences on immigration: evidence from Europe," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(2), pages 225-239, January.
    10. Cedric Dawkins & John Fraas, 2011. "Coming Clean: The Impact of Environmental Performance and Visibility on Corporate Climate Change Disclosure," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 100(2), pages 303-322, May.
    11. Lars Dorren & Wouter Dooren, 2021. "Chameleonic knowledge: a study of ex ante analysis in large infrastructure policy processes," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 289-312, June.
    12. Dorren, Lars & Van Dooren, Wouter, 2021. "Chameleonic knowledge: a study of ex ante analysis in large infrastructure policy processes," SocArXiv 2shq9_v1, Center for Open Science.
    13. Dovilė Rimkutė, 2015. "Explaining Differences in Scientific Expertise Use: The Politics of Pesticides," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 114-127.

    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:cog:poango:v3:y:2015:i:1:p:114-127. 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: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.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.