IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v16y2016i1p79-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Transatlantic Policy Divergence: The Role of Domestic Politics and Policy Styles in Nanotechnology Risk Regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Ronit Justo-Hanani

    (University of California, Berkeley)

  • Tamar Dayan

    (Tel Aviv University)

Abstract

In this study, we seek to explain a growing divergence between the US and EU regulatory policies over nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety risks. Faced with significant scientific and regulatory uncertainties, incremental approaches have been taken in both regulatory systems, but substantial differences are evident in terms of both policy processes and stringency. While the EU exhibits a regulatory integration process with stringent adjustments of existing legislative frameworks, the US is far less engaged in regulatory adaptations. We have carried out a comparative analysis of the EU and US regulatory policies. We suggest that literature perspectives that focus on differing public attitudes, economic interests, and advocacy pressure groups do not suffice to explain the regulatory policy divergence. We argue that a combined effect of domestic politics and policy styles provides the most powerful explanation of why the US and EU currently differ with respect to their regulatory responses to nanotechnology risks and uncertainties.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronit Justo-Hanani & Tamar Dayan, 2016. "Explaining Transatlantic Policy Divergence: The Role of Domestic Politics and Policy Styles in Nanotechnology Risk Regulation," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(1), pages 79-98, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:16:y:2016:i:1:p:79-98
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/GLEP_e_00337
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Robert Falkner & Nico Jaspers, 2012. "Regulating Nanotechnologies: Risk, Uncertainty and the Global Governance Gap," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 12(1), pages 30-55, February.
    2. Vogel, David, 2003. "The Hare and the Tortoise Revisited: The New Politics of Consumer and Environmental Regulation in Europe," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 557-580, October.
    3. Hannes R. Stephan, 2012. "Revisiting the Transatlantic Divergence over GMOs: Toward a Cultural-Political Analysis," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 12(4), pages 104-124, November.
    4. Justo-Hanani, Ronit & Dayan, Tamar, 2014. "The role of the state in regulatory policy for nanomaterials risk: Analyzing the expansion of state-centric rulemaking in EU and US chemicals policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 169-178.
    5. G. Kristin Rosendal, 2005. "Governing GMOs in the EU: A Deviant Case of Environmental Policy-making?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 5(1), pages 82-104, February.
    6. Justo-Hanani, Ronit & Dayan, Tamar, 2015. "European risk governance of nanotechnology: Explaining the emerging regulatory policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1527-1536.
    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. Kirsten Rodine-Hardy, 2016. "Nanotechnology and Global Environmental Politics: Transatlantic Divergence," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(3), pages 89-105, August.
    2. Alan Kennedy & Jonathon Brame & Taylor Rycroft & Matthew Wood & Valerie Zemba & Charles Weiss & Matthew Hull & Cary Hill & Charles Geraci & Igor Linkov, 2019. "A Definition and Categorization System for Advanced Materials: The Foundation for Risk‐Informed Environmental Health and Safety Testing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1783-1795, August.
    3. Steinar Andresen & G. Kristin Rosendal & Jon Birger Skjærseth, 2018. "Regulating the invisible: interaction between the EU and Norway in managing nano-risks," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 513-528, August.
    4. Ronit Justo-Hanani & Tamar Dayan, 2021. "Risk regulation and precaution in Europe and the United States: the case of bioinvasion," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 3-20, March.
    5. Ronit Justo-Hanani, 2022. "The politics of Artificial Intelligence regulation and governance reform in the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 137-159, March.

    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. Justo-Hanani, Ronit & Dayan, Tamar, 2015. "European risk governance of nanotechnology: Explaining the emerging regulatory policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1527-1536.
    2. Steinar Andresen & G. Kristin Rosendal & Jon Birger Skjærseth, 2018. "Regulating the invisible: interaction between the EU and Norway in managing nano-risks," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 513-528, August.
    3. Ronit Justo-Hanani, 2022. "The politics of Artificial Intelligence regulation and governance reform in the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 137-159, March.
    4. Justo-Hanani, Ronit & Dayan, Tamar, 2014. "The role of the state in regulatory policy for nanomaterials risk: Analyzing the expansion of state-centric rulemaking in EU and US chemicals policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 169-178.
    5. Runhui Lin & Yuan Gui & Zaiyang Xie & Lu Liu, 2019. "Green Governance and International Business Strategies of Emerging Economies’ Multinational Enterprises: A Multiple-Case Study of Chinese Firms in Pollution-Intensive Industries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-32, February.
    6. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "A California Effect for International Environmental Externalities?," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 170-189, April.
    7. Zilberman, David & Graff, Gregory & Hochman, Gal & Kaplan, Scott, 2015. "The Political Economy of Biotechnology," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(04), December.
    8. John Braithwaite & Cary Coglianese & David Levi‐Faur, 2007. "Can regulation and governance make a difference?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, March.
    9. Diego Badell & Jordi Rosell, 2021. "Are EU Institutions Still Green Actors? An Empirical Study of Green Public Procurement," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(6), pages 1555-1572, November.
    10. Fritz W. Scharpf, 2009. "The Asymmetry of European Integration - or why the EU cannot be a Social Market Economy," KFG Working Papers p0006, Free University Berlin.
    11. Sophie Nappert, 2013. "The Reality of Precaution -- Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe, Jonathan B Wiener, Michael D Rogers, James K Hammitt, Peter H Sand, eds, RFF Press, 2011," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(10), pages 1317-1320, November.
    12. Miriam Hartlapp & Christian Rauh, 2013. "The Commission’s internal conditions for social re-regulation: Market efficiency and wider social goals in setting the rules for financial services in Europe," European Journal of Government and Economics, Europa Grande, vol. 2(1), pages 25-40, June.
    13. Vicki Stone & Martin Führ & Peter H. Feindt & Hans Bouwmeester & Igor Linkov & Stefania Sabella & Finbarr Murphy & Kilian Bizer & Lang Tran & Marlene Ågerstrand & Carlos Fito & Torben Andersen & Diana, 2018. "The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1321-1331, July.
    14. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Domestic reform as a rationale for gradualism in international cooperation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 400-427, July.
    15. Ronit Justo-Hanani & Tamar Dayan, 2021. "Risk regulation and precaution in Europe and the United States: the case of bioinvasion," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 3-20, March.
    16. Deters, Henning, 2010. "Legislating on car emissions: What drives standards in EU environmental policy?," TranState Working Papers 142, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    17. Tran, Van T. & Yiannaka, Amalia & Giannakas, Konstantinos, 2013. "Consumer Attitudes, Labeling Regimes and the Market Success of Food Nanotechnology," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151262, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Mordue, Greig & Yeung, Anders & Wu, Fan, 2020. "The looming challenges of regulating high level autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 174-187.
    19. Holburn, Guy L.F., 2012. "Assessing and managing regulatory risk in renewable energy: Contrasts between Canada and the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 654-665.
    20. Lincey Bastings & Ellen Mastenbroek & Esther Versluis, 2017. "The other face of Eurolegalism: The multifaceted convergence of national enforcement styles," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 299-314, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    economics; environment; politics; policy; regulation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:tpr:glenvp:v:16:y:2016:i:1:p:79-98. 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: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.