IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v32y2005i6p445-456.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative boundary work: US acid rain and global climate change policy deliberations

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Zehr

Abstract

Boundary work between science and politics in US acid rain and climate change congressional hearings is compared. In the acid rain case, boundaries were flexibly drawn between science and politics as expert scientists tailored their expertise to appear both objective and useful. In climate change hearings during the 1990s, there were fewer examples of direct boundary work. Three explanations are presented: expert scientists and economists drew on knowledge claims from a boundary organization; they drew on a discourse that combined economic growth and environmental protection in more politically acceptable ways; and they developed more sophistication in merging science and politics in hybrid forms. However, these three developments proved to be not completely stable, leading to further boundary work that discursively established a safe scientific domain away from the hearings. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Zehr, 2005. "Comparative boundary work: US acid rain and global climate change policy deliberations," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(6), pages 445-456, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:32:y:2005:i:6:p:445-456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154305781779227
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. van Noordwijk, Meine & Dickson, Nancy M. & Catacutan, Delia & Guston, David & McNie, Elizabeth & Tomich, Thomas P. & Clark, William C., 2010. "Toward a General Theory of Boundary Work: Insights from the CGIAR’s Natural Resource Management Programs," Scholarly Articles 4450046, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    2. William C. Clark & Thomas P. Tomich & Meine van Noordwijk & Nancy M. Dickson & Delia Catacutan & David Guston & Elizabeth McNie, 2010. "Toward a General Theory of Boundary Work: Insights from the CGIAR’s Natural Resource Management Programs," CID Working Papers 199, Center for International Development at Harvard University.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:32:y:2005:i:6:p:445-456. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.