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

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronit Justo-Hanani ◽  
Tamar Dayan
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Environmental Health And Safety ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Pressure Groups ◽  
Regulatory Policies ◽  
The Us ◽  
Policy Styles ◽  
The Eu

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.

Signed, Sealed, but not Delivered: The EU and the Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 629-632
Author(s):  
Ana Ramalho
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Technical Progress ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Inside View ◽  
Laws And Policies ◽  
Ip Law ◽  
Crossing Point ◽  
Marrakesh Treaty ◽  
The Eu

This section is devoted to giving readers an inside view of the crossing point between intellectual property (IP) law and risk regulation. In addition to updating readers on the latest developments in IP law and policies in technological fields (including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, agriculture and foodstuffs), the section aims at verifying whether such laws and policies really stimulate scientific and technical progress and are capable of minimising the risks posed by on-going industrial developments to individuals’ health and safety, inter alia.

The Public Life of Private Law: Tort Law as a Risk Regulation Mechanism

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas A KYSAR
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Health ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Regulation Mechanism ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Environmental Health And Safety ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Safety Risks ◽  
Tort System ◽  
History Of

AbstractAgainst the backdrop of contemporary climate change lawsuits, this article presents preliminary research findings regarding a remarkable and underappreciated moment in the common law pre-history of modern environmental, health, and safety regulation. The findings complicate the conventional academic story about the limited capabilities of tort law and its inevitable displacement by more institutionally robust and sophisticated forms of regulation. Section I offers a brief introduction, followed in Section II by a review of existing academic literature on the pros and cons of utilising tort law as a regulatory device. As will be seen, the consensus view seems to be that tort law is a clumsy and imperfect mechanism for addressing most environmental, health, and safety risks. Section III argues that the debate over tort law’s potential as a risk regulation mechanism ignores the distinctively private law history and character of that body of law, essentially asking tort to serve a purpose for which it was neither intended nor designed. Section IV then presents a case study of nuisance litigation in which the tort system achieves a remarkable and underappreciated risk regulation effect precisely by focusing narrowly on the traditional task of adjudicating alleged wrongs between private parties. Section V concludes.

Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Analysis: Public Opinion, Elections, Interest Groups, and the Media

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas C. Foyle ◽  
Douglas Van Belle
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Political Competition ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Societal Factors ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Media

Societal factors such as public opinion, interest groups, and the media can influence foreign policy choices and behavior. To date, the public opinion and foreign policy literature has focused largely on data derived from the US, although this trend has begun to change in recent years. However, while much of the scholarly work suggests that public attitudes on foreign policy are both reasonable and structured, significant controversies exist over the public’s general influence on policy as well as the influence of elections on foreign policy. Meanwhile, the study of interest groups as a domestic source of foreign policy is dominated by two points of emphasis: ethnic groups acting as interest groups and the US case. These are most often considered together. This ethnic interest group literature stands largely apart from the literature on trade interest groups, which takes its inspiration from the economics literature. Finally, two aspects of media are specifically relevant to media and domestic sources of foreign policy. The first is the way the media serve as an arena of domestic political competition within democracies, and the second is the communicative role that media play in the formation of public opinions that are specific to and critical to foreign policy decision making.

Introduction: benefit-cost analysis and the environment in developing countries

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-221
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Environmental Health And Safety ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Project Appraisal ◽  
The Us ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Benefit Cost

In one sense, everyone making a decision of any consequence uses something very like benefit-cost analysis. That is, they weigh up the pros and cons of the options confronting them and decide between them accordingly. Benefit-cost analysis is merely one systematic way of evaluating the economically relevant pros and cons of various options. The authors of the project appraisal manuals of the early 1970s (Mishan, 1971; Dasgupta et al., 1972; Pearce, 1972; Little and Mirrlees, 1974) were interested in establishing a set of rules that might ensure that the results of distinct social investment decisions would be efficient (or at least consistent). On the surface, the paper by Arrow et al. (1996) that is the focus of this forum merely argues for an extension of benefit-cost rules to an area where, as David Pearce points out in his commentary, policy-making tends to be dominated by hasty, ill-conceived, ad hoc responses to the pressures of the moment. The paper argues that environmental, health and safety regulations in the US could and should be informed by an analysis of their economically relevant costs and benefits.

scholarly journals Seizures of In Transit Generics at the EU Borders: India and Brazil v. the EU

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 404-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Bonadio ◽  
Carlo Maria Cantore
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Technical Progress ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Inside View ◽  
Laws And Policies ◽  
In Transit ◽  
Ip Law ◽  
Crossing Point ◽  
The Eu

This section is devoted to giving readers an inside view of the crossing point between intellectual property (IP) law and risk regulation. In addition to updating readers on the latest developments in IP law and policies in technological fields (including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, agriculture and foodstuffs), the section aims at verifying whether such laws and policies really stimulate scientific and technical progress and are capable of minimising the risks posed by on-going industrial developments to individuals’ health and safety, inter alia.

The Scope of ‘Patent Linkage’ in the US–South Korea Free Trade Agreement and the Potential Effects on International Trade Agreements

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-442
Author(s):  
Eugenia Costanza Laurenza
Keyword(s):  
Health And Safety ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Us South ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
International Trade Agreements ◽  
The Us ◽  
Laws And Policies ◽  
Ip Law ◽  
Crossing Point ◽  
Patent Linkage

This section is devoted to giving readers an inside view of the crossing point between intellectual property (IP) law and risk regulation. In addition to updating readers on the latest developments in IP law and policies in technological fields (including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, agriculture and foodstuffs), the section aims at verifying whether such laws and policies really stimulate scientific and technical progress and are capable of minimising the risks posed by on-going industrial developments to individuals’ health and safety, inter alia.

Risk, Science and Politics: Alachlor Regulation in Canada and the United States

1990 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Hoberg
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Regulation ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
Comparative Case Study ◽  
Environmental Health And Safety ◽  
The Us ◽  
Science And Politics ◽  
Group Politics

AbstractThis article is a comparative case study of environmental regulation in Canada and the United States, focussing on one important area of environmental regulation, pesticides, and on the treatment of North America's most commercially important pesticide, alachlor. Alachlor is a clear case of policy divergence: Canadians have banned the substance while the US has decided to keep it on the market with minimal restrictions. Three major explanations for the divergence are explored: science, interest group politics, and legal and institutional arrangements. The article concludes that while different interpretations of the risks posed by alachlor contributed to the different decisions, they can only be explained with reference to the economic importance of alachlor and the need to maintain the legitimacy of current institutional arrangements. The concluding section outlines a framework for explaining similarities and differences in environmental, health and safety regulations across nations.

Divergences between EU and US in the Financial Regulation

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Pugliese
Keyword(s):  
Financial Stability ◽  
Financial Regulation ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Financial Supervision ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
Eu And Us ◽  
Financial Relationship ◽  
The Eu

Financial regulation is an issue where differences between the EU and US are highly sensitive. Indeed, EU and US apply in a different manner the financial standards adopted at international level by the Basel Committee and have different systems of financial supervision.Due to these significant differences between the two systems, it is very difficult for the EU and US to reach an agreement on common financial standards within the TTIP negotiations. Actually, as the differences in regulation between the two systems are an obstacle to the access of the financial operators of each Party to the market of the other Party, the absence of common standards in this sector could nullify the efficacy of norms of market access that will be probably contained within the TTIP.Moreover, in a risk regulation perspective, considering the weight that the US and EU financial relationship have on the global system and taking account of the effect of destabilization that could be generated by the divergent requirements imposed to the credit institutions on the two sides of the Atlantic, the lack of common financial standards between the EU and US could have a great impact on global financial stability.

9. Poland: Model European or Awkward Partner?

2020 ◽  
pp. 203-229
Author(s):  
Nathaniel Copsey ◽  
Karolina Pomorska
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
European Union ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Class ◽  
Eu Membership ◽  
Early Decision ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the pattern of Poland’s relations with the European Union during the period 1989–2011. Poland took an early decision in 1989 to place European integration at the centre of its plans for democratization and modernization. Post-accession opinion in Poland on the EU was initially divided between an increasingly Europhile public and an occasionally Eurosceptic political class. By the time of the Polish Presidency of the EU in 2011, however, Poland had largely shed its reputation for awkwardness and had achieved a few policy successes, particularly in relations with its Eastern neighbours. The chapter explains how Poland came to join the EU and assesses the impact of its EU membership on domestic politics, public opinion, institutions, governance, and public policy. It concludes by considering the re-emergent divide between elite and public attitudes since the 2015 elections and tensions with the EU over the rule of law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document