IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i10p2773-d231257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiplicity of Perspectives on Sustainable Food: Moving Beyond Discursive Path Dependency in Food Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Michiel P.M.M. de Krom

    (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bezuidenhoutseweg 30, 2594 AV The Hague, The Netherlands)

  • Hanneke Muilwijk

    (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bezuidenhoutseweg 30, 2594 AV The Hague, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The idea that a sustainable transformation of the food system is urgently needed is gaining ground throughout Europe. Yet, opinions differ substantially on what a sustainable food future exactly entails, and on how this future may be achieved. This article argues that recognising this multiplicity of opinions and perspectives in policy making is productive because it creates attentiveness to innovative ideas and initiatives, and may contribute to a broad social support base for policy choices. However, food policy makers may overlook the diversity in perspectives by unreflexively adopting understandings of problems and solutions that are historically dominant in their organisations. In this article, we reveal the usefulness of triggering reflection on such discursive path dependencies amongst policy makers. We do so by presenting a three-fold case study that we conducted in the Netherlands. First, we analytically distinguish five perspectives on sustainable food that feature prominently in the Dutch public debate. Subsequently, we show that only two out of these five perspectives predominantly informed a Dutch food policy—despite intentions to devise a more integrated policy approach. Finally, we discuss the findings of two focus groups in which we discussed our analyses with Dutch civil servants who have been involved in drafting the Dutch food policy. These focus groups triggered reflection among the civil servants on their own perspectival biases as well as on discursive path dependencies in Dutch food policy making. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for the understanding of the discursive politics of sustainable agro-food transformations in Europe.

Suggested Citation

  • Michiel P.M.M. de Krom & Hanneke Muilwijk, 2019. "Multiplicity of Perspectives on Sustainable Food: Moving Beyond Discursive Path Dependency in Food Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:10:p:2773-:d:231257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2773/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2773/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vatn, Arild, 2018. "Environmental Governance – From Public to Private?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 170-177.
    2. Béné, Christophe & Oosterveer, Peter & Lamotte, Lea & Brouwer, Inge D. & de Haan, Stef & Prager, Steve D. & Talsma, Elise F. & Khoury, Colin K., 2019. "When food systems meet sustainability – Current narratives and implications for actions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 116-130.
    3. Bill Hopwood & Mary Mellor & Geoff O'Brien, 2005. "Sustainable development: mapping different approaches," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 38-52.
    4. Candel, Jeroen J.L. & Breeman, Gerard E. & Stiller, Sabina J. & Termeer, Catrien J.A.M., 2014. "Disentangling the consensus frame of food security: The case of the EU Common Agricultural Policy reform debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 47-58.
    5. Eleni Papaoikonomou & Matías Ginieis, 2017. "Putting the farmer’s face on food: governance and the producer–consumer relationship in local food systems," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(1), pages 53-67, March.
    6. Stewart Lockie, 2009. "Responsibility and agency within alternative food networks: assembling the “citizen consumer”," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 26(3), pages 193-201, September.
    7. Soma, Katrine & Termeer, Catrien J.A.M. & Opdam, Paul, 2016. "Informational governance – A systematic literature review of governance for sustainability in the Information Age," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 89-99.
    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. Minna Santaoja & Mikko Jauho, 2020. "Institutional Ambiguity and Ontological Politics in Integrating Sustainability into Finnish Dietary Guidelines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Kristiaan P. W. Kok & Alanya C. L. den Boer & Tomris Cesuroglu & Marjoleine G. van der Meij & Renée de Wildt-Liesveld & Barbara J. Regeer & Jacqueline E. W. Broerse, 2019. "Transforming Research and Innovation for Sustainable Food Systems—A Coupled-Systems Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Luiz Morais-da-Silva, Rodrigo & Glufke Reis, Germano & Sanctorum, Hermes & Forte Maiolino Molento, Carla, 2022. "The social impacts of a transition from conventional to cultivated and plant-based meats: Evidence from Brazil," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).

    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. Aintzira Oñederra-Aramendi & Mirene Begiristain-Zubillaga & Mamen Cuellar-Padilla, 2023. "Characterisation of food governance for alternative and sustainable food systems: a systematic review," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-32, December.
    2. Nadine Arnold & Gianluca Brunori & Joost Dessein & Francesca Galli & Ritwick Ghosh & Allison Loconto & Damian Maye, 2022. "Governing food futures: Towards a ‘responsibility turn’ in food and agriculture," Post-Print hal-04562211, HAL.
    3. Keith B. Matthews & Ansel Renner & Kirsty L. Blackstock & Kerry A. Waylen & Dave G. Miller & Doug H. Wardell-Johnson & Alba Juarez-Bourke & Juan Cadillo-Benalcazar & Joep F. Schyns & Mario Giampietro, 2021. "Old Wine in New Bottles: Exploiting Data from the EU’s Farm Accountancy Data Network for Pan-EU Sustainability Assessments of Agricultural Production Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-26, September.
    4. Endl, Andreas & Tost, Michael & Hitch, Michael & Moser, Peter & Feiel, Susanne, 2021. "Europe's mining innovation trends and their contribution to the sustainable development goals: Blind spots and strong points," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. Yu Wang & Shanyong Wang & Jing Wang & Jiuchang Wei & Chenglin Wang, 2020. "An empirical study of consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: using an extended technology acceptance model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 397-415, February.
    6. Espinoza-Tenorio, Alejandro & Espejel, Ileana & Wolff, Matthias, 2015. "From adoption to implementation? An academic perspective on Sustainable Fisheries Management in a developing country," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 252-260.
    7. Erwin Van Tuijl & Leo Van den Berg, 2016. "Annual City Festivals as Tools for Sustainable Competitiveness: The World Port Days Rotterdam," Economies, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-13, May.
    8. Beulah Pretorius & Jane Ambuko & Effie Papargyropoulou & Hettie C. Schönfeldt, 2021. "Guiding Nutritious Food Choices and Diets along Food Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, August.
    9. Chen, Shih-Chih & Hung, Chung-Wen, 2016. "Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of green products: An extension of theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 155-163.
    10. Mario Pansera & Fabien Martinez, 2017. "Innovation for development and poverty reduction: an integrative literature review," Post-Print hal-02887777, HAL.
    11. Dawid Szostek, 2019. "The Impact of the Quality of Interpersonal Relationships between Employees on Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Study of Employees in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-33, October.
    12. Anna Gaviglio & Mattia Bertocchi & Maria Elena Marescotti & Eugenio Demartini & Alberto Pirani, 2016. "The social pillar of sustainability: a quantitative approach at the farm level," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Vogel, Everton & Martinelli, Gabrielli & Artuzo, Felipe Dalzotto, 2021. "Environmental and economic performance of paddy field-based crop-livestock systems in Southern Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    14. Hametner, Markus, 2022. "Economics without ecology: How the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    15. Ronja Teschner & Jessica Ruppen & Basil Bornemann & Rony Emmenegger & Lucía Aguirre Sánchez, 2021. "Mapping Sustainable Diets: A Comparison of Sustainability References in Dietary Guidelines of Swiss Food Governance Actors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, November.
    16. Shaikha R. Al-Nuaimi & Sami G. Al-Ghamdi, 2022. "Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice towards Sustainability Aspects among Higher Education Students in Qatar," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-17, October.
    17. Alpaslan Kelleci & Oğuz Yıldız, 2021. "A Guiding Framework for Levels of Sustainability in Marketing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    18. Walter J.V. Vermeulen, 2015. "Self‐Governance for Sustainable Global Supply Chains: Can it Deliver the Impacts Needed?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 73-85, February.
    19. Chiara Mio & Silvia Panfilo & Benedetta Blundo, 2020. "Sustainable development goals and the strategic role of business: A systematic literature review," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3220-3245, December.
    20. Xin Huang & Xianling Jiang & Wei Liu & Qian Chen, 2021. "Business Group-Affiliation and Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Listed Companies in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:10:p:2773-:d:231257. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.