IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v40y2013i5p616-627.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contested framings and policy controversies: Analysing biosafety policy-making in Iran

Author

Listed:
  • Ebrahim Souzanchi Kashani
  • Erik Millstone

Abstract

Vigorous debates have taken place within and between many countries about regulatory policy regimes covering the assessment and approval of genetically modified (GM) crops. In Iran, a very vigorous and hotly contested policy debate concerning legislation covering GM crops occurred between 2004 and 2009, but it was confined within government circles with almost no public discussion. This paper analyses the Iranian policy-making process in the period 2006--9. It explains how and why a stalemate arose in disputes between ministries and departments. The chosen analytical framework draws mainly on the regulation of technological risks and the analysis of public policy-making. It deploys the concept of 'framing assumptions' as a central unit of analysis. The account locates the roots of disputes in the diverse and contested sets of framing assumptions used by the various ministries and organisations. It also explains the legislative outcome and its portrayal by reference to the political authority of science. Copyright The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Ebrahim Souzanchi Kashani & Erik Millstone, 2013. "Contested framings and policy controversies: Analysing biosafety policy-making in Iran," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(5), pages 616-627, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:40:y:2013:i:5:p:616-627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/sct015
    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.

    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:40:y:2013:i:5:p:616-627. 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.