IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v36y2011i6p736-741.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evolving science-society contract in India: The search for legitimacy in anticipatory risk governance

Author

Listed:
  • Gupta, Aarti

Abstract

This article analyzes evolving institutions and practices of anticipatory risk governance in India, through the lens of two recent and highly controversial developments in governing genetically modified crops in Indian agriculture. These developments include, first, conflicts over approving (or not) the very first genetically modified food crop in India and a related experiment in participatory decision-making; and second, proposals to revamp the existing biosafety regulatory system (with its checks and balances across diverse sources of authority) with one that elevates scientists and scientific expertise to the pinnacle of decision-making power. The article analyzes the distinct means by which legitimacy is sought to be conferred upon the means and ends of anticipatory risk governance, as reflected in these two examples. I contrast claims to legitimacy deriving from innovative experiments in participatory democracy with legitimacy claims based upon “objective” science, showing that despite acknowledged need for the former, the latter is still being prioritized. The article concludes by identifying the contours of an evolving science-society contract in India, as revealed by these cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "An evolving science-society contract in India: The search for legitimacy in anticipatory risk governance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 736-741.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:36:y:2011:i:6:p:736-741
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.07.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919211000984
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.07.011?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. Sheila Jasanoff, 2003. "(No?) Accounting for expertise," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 157-162, June.
    2. Aarti Gupta, 2010. "Transparency as Contested Political Terrain: Who Knows What about the Global GMO Trade and Why does it Matter?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 10(3), pages 32-52, August.
    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. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    2. Jane A. Flegal & Aarti Gupta, 2018. "Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 45-61, February.
    3. Karlijn Muiderman & Aarti Gupta & Joost Vervoort & Frank Biermann, 2020. "Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance: Different conceptions of the future and implications for the present," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.

    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. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Fábio Grigoletto & Fernanda Antunes de Oliveira & Caio Caradi Momesso & Ibrahim Kamel Rodrigues Nehemy & João Emílio de Almeida Junior & Vinícius de Avelar São Pedro & Roberto Greco & Mário Aquino Alv, 2023. "Technological Affordance and the Realities of Citizen Science Projects Developed in Challenging Territories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, April.
    3. Himick, Darlene & Brivot, Marion & Henri, Jean-François, 2016. "An ethical perspective on accounting standard setting: Professional and lay-experts’ contribution to GASB’s Pension Project," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 22-38.
    4. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1856-1864, September.
    5. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.
    6. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    7. Mitchell, Ronald B., 2011. "Transparency for governance: The mechanisms and effectiveness of disclosure-based and education-based transparency policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1882-1890, September.
    8. Gardner, T.A. & Benzie, M. & Börner, J. & Dawkins, E. & Fick, S. & Garrett, R. & Godar, J. & Grimard, A. & Lake, S. & Larsen, R.K. & Mardas, N. & McDermott, C.L. & Meyfroidt, P. & Osbeck, M. & Persson, 2019. "Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 163-177.
    9. Peter D. Gluckman & Anne Bardsley & Matthias Kaiser, 2021. "Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Warren Pearce, 2020. "Trouble in the trough: how uncertainties were downplayed in the UK’s science advice on Covid-19," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-6, December.
    11. Timotijevic, L. & Barnett, J. & Raats, M.M., 2011. "Engagement, representativeness and legitimacy in the development of food and nutrition policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 490-498, August.
    12. Luis Pérez-González, 2020. "‘Is climate science taking over the science?’: A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Gritsenko, Daria, 2024. "Advancing UN digital cooperation: Lessons from environmental policy and governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    14. Aarti Gupta, 2010. "Transparency to What End? Governing by Disclosure through the Biosafety Clearing House," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 28(1), pages 128-144, February.
    15. Joseph F. Brazel & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2007. "An Examination of Auditor Planning Judgements in a Complex Accounting Information System Environment," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1059-1083, December.
    16. Lowe, Philip & Phillipson, Jeremy & Proctor, Amy & Gkartzios, Menelaos, 2019. "Expertise in rural development: A conceptual and empirical analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 28-37.
    17. Spagnuolo, Francesca, 2011. "Diversity and pluralism in earth system governance: Contemplating the role for global administrative law," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1875-1881, September.

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:36:y:2011:i:6:p:736-741. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    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.