IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v32y2010i4p280-287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Canadian biotechnology regulatory regime: The role of participation

Author

Listed:
  • Howlett, Michael
  • Migone, Andrea Riccardo

Abstract

In this article, we ask the question: how important is the participation element in the creation and reproduction of the Canadian biotechnology policy regime? We find that within the quasi-promotional regime currently in place in Canada, participation plays an interesting role (close to Hirschman’s ‘voice’ option), but not a core one in setting or modifying policy structure. It depends largely on the institutional setting within which the policy regime was originally constituted. We expect that in Canada, participation will make few inroads in changing the policy regime unless some core elements of the latter change.

Suggested Citation

  • Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea Riccardo, 2010. "The Canadian biotechnology regulatory regime: The role of participation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 280-287.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:32:y:2010:i:4:p:280-287
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.10.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X10000710
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.10.004?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. Brown, J. Lynne & Qin, Wei, 2005. "Testing Public Policy Concepts to Inform Consumers about Genetically Engineered Foods," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(4), pages 1-5.
    2. 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.
    3. Kana Talukder & Jennifer Kuzma, 2008. "Evaluating technology oversight through multiple frameworks: A case study of genetically engineered cotton in India," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 121-138, March.
    4. Daniel Lee Kleinman & Abby J Kinchy & Robyn Autry, 2009. "Local variation or global convergence in agricultural biotechnology policy? A comparative analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 361-371, June.
    5. Paarlberg, Robert L., 2000. "Governing the GM crop revolution: policy choices for developing countries," 2020 vision discussion papers 33, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Joan Costa-Font & Elias Mossialos, 2005. "Is dread of Genetically Modified food associated with the consumers' demand for information?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(14), pages 859-863.
    7. Montpetit, Éric, 2005. "A Policy Network Explanation of Biotechnology Policy Differences between the United States and Canada," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 339-366, December.
    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. Céline Bérard, 2013. "Les démarches participatives en matière de politiques publiques : le cas de la propriété intellectuelle des innovations biotechnologiques," Post-Print halshs-00987945, HAL.

    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. Leong, Ching Ching & Jarvis, Darryl & Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea, 2011. "Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 128-136.
    2. Jabbar, Amina M. & Abelson, Julia, 2011. "Development of a framework for effective community engagement in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-69, June.
    3. De Groote, Hugo & Overholt, William & Ouma, James Okuro & Mugo, Stephen, 2003. "Assessing The Potential Impact Of Bt Maize In Kenya Using A Gis Based Model," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25854, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Mauro Serapioni & Pedro Lopes Ferreira & Patrícia Antunes, 2014. "Participação em Saúde: Conceitos e Conteúdos," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 26-42, December.
    5. Kynda R. Curtis & Klaus Moeltner, 2006. "Genetically Modified Food Market Participation and Consumer Risk Perceptions: A Cross‐Country Comparison," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(2), pages 289-310, June.
    6. Anthony J. Culyer & Yvonne Bombard, 2012. "An Equity Framework for Health Technology Assessments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(3), pages 428-441, May.
    7. Degeling, Chris & Carter, Stacy M. & Rychetnik, Lucie, 2015. "Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 114-121.
    8. Mahaffey, Harry & Taheripour, Farzad & Tyner, Wallace E., 2016. "Evaluating the Economic and Environmental Impacts of a Global GMO Ban," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235591, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Jennifer Kuzma & Todd Tanji, 2010. "Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 92-112, March.
    10. Rudisill, Caroline & Costa-Font, Joan & Mossialos, Elias, 2012. "Behavioral adjustment to avian flu in Europe during spring 2006: The roles of knowledge and proximity to risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1362-1371.
    11. Douglas, Conor M.W. & Wilcox, Elizabeth & Burgess, Michael & Lynd, Larry D., 2015. "Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 588-596.
    12. Hodgetts, Katherine & Elshaug, Adam G. & Hiller, Janet E., 2012. "What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2191-2199.
    13. Sandy Oliver & David Armes & Gill Gyte, 2009. "Public Involvement in Setting a National Research Agenda," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(3), pages 179-190, September.
    14. Bing Wang & Yiwei Lyu, 2023. "Research on the Compilation of a Composite Index from the Perspective of Public Value—The Case of the Global Health Security Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Fan, Linlin & Stevens, Andrew W. & Thomas, Betty, 2022. "Consumer purchasing response to mandatory genetically engineered labeling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    16. Milewa, Timothy, 2008. "Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 356-362, March.
    17. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Tranter, Richard B. & Gil, Jose Maria & Jones, Philip J. & Gylling, Morten, 2010. "Do defaults matter? Willingness to pay to avoid GM food vis-à-vis organic and conventional food in Denmark, Great Britain and Spain," 84th Annual Conference, March 29-31, 2010, Edinburgh, Scotland 91750, Agricultural Economics Society.
    18. Cavazza, Marianna & Jommi, Claudio, 2012. "Stakeholders involvement by HTA Organisations: Why is so different?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 236-245.
    19. De Groote, Hugo & Gitonga, Zachary & Kimenju, Simon & Keter, Fredric & Ngigi, Obadiah, 2015. "But what do rural consumers in Africa think about GM food?," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211565, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth, 2012. "A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies—Evidence from the real world," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 218-230.

    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:teinso:v:32:y:2010:i:4:p:280-287. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.