Challenging agricultural norms and diversifying actors: Building transformative public policy for equitable food systems

Johanna Wilkes
{"title":"Challenging agricultural norms and diversifying actors: Building transformative public policy for equitable food systems","authors":"Johanna Wilkes","doi":"10.5304/jafscd.2024.133.032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Food systems governance regimes have long been spaces of “thick legitimacy” (Montenegro de Wit & Iles, 2016), where embedded norms benefit pro­duc­tivist agricultural practices. Within governance regimes, the science-policy interface and the scien­tists who occupy this space are integral in today’s public policy processes. Often treated as objective science, technical disciplines have become a power­ful source of legitimatizing in decision making. Without the contextualization of lived experience or diverse ways of knowing, these siloed spaces can lead policymakers towards an action bias (e.g., a rush to short-term solutions) that neglects the underlying causes and concerns of our current crises. Current governance arrangements in the science-policy interface demonstrate the bias toward technical science (e.g. economics) and short-term solutions. However, by challenging productivist agriculture norms reformed public policy processes may shift from a space of repres­sion to one of possibility. This reform can happen through investigatiing dominant actor coalitions and identifying tools to reconfigure these power arrangements. Public policy theory, such as the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), helps organ­ize relations within current agricultural policy arenas. The work of practitioners and other disci­plines offer tools that can support transformative action by food systems advocates in the pursuit of changing the way public policy is made. In part, understanding how power is organized and who may influence policy processes is critical to change. This reflective essay ends with tools and strategies for those wishing to engage governments in this shift. The proposed tools and strategies focus on how people (e.g. policy champions), processes (e.g. policy leverage points), and partnerships (e.g. ally­ship) generate ways in which advocates can, and do, engage governments in transformative change.","PeriodicalId":505953,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development","volume":"69 s312","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2024.133.032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Food systems governance regimes have long been spaces of “thick legitimacy” (Montenegro de Wit & Iles, 2016), where embedded norms benefit pro­duc­tivist agricultural practices. Within governance regimes, the science-policy interface and the scien­tists who occupy this space are integral in today’s public policy processes. Often treated as objective science, technical disciplines have become a power­ful source of legitimatizing in decision making. Without the contextualization of lived experience or diverse ways of knowing, these siloed spaces can lead policymakers towards an action bias (e.g., a rush to short-term solutions) that neglects the underlying causes and concerns of our current crises. Current governance arrangements in the science-policy interface demonstrate the bias toward technical science (e.g. economics) and short-term solutions. However, by challenging productivist agriculture norms reformed public policy processes may shift from a space of repres­sion to one of possibility. This reform can happen through investigatiing dominant actor coalitions and identifying tools to reconfigure these power arrangements. Public policy theory, such as the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), helps organ­ize relations within current agricultural policy arenas. The work of practitioners and other disci­plines offer tools that can support transformative action by food systems advocates in the pursuit of changing the way public policy is made. In part, understanding how power is organized and who may influence policy processes is critical to change. This reflective essay ends with tools and strategies for those wishing to engage governments in this shift. The proposed tools and strategies focus on how people (e.g. policy champions), processes (e.g. policy leverage points), and partnerships (e.g. ally­ship) generate ways in which advocates can, and do, engage governments in transformative change.
挑战农业规范,实现参与者多样化:制定促进公平粮食系统的变革性公共政策
长期以来,粮食系统治理制度一直是 "厚重合法性 "的空间(Montenegro de Wit & Iles, 2016),其中的嵌入式规范有利于生产型农业实践。在治理制度中,科学与政策的衔接以及占据这一空间的科学家是当今公共政策进程中不可或缺的一部分。技术学科通常被视为客观科学,已成为决策合法性的强大来源。如果没有生活经验的背景化或不同的认知方式,这些孤立的空间可能会导致政策制定者的行动偏差(例如,急于寻求短期解决方案),从而忽视了我们当前危机的根本原因和关注点。当前科学与政策界面的治理安排显示出对技术科学(如经济学)和短期解决方案的偏向。然而,通过对生产主义农业规范的挑战,改革后的公共政策进程可能会从压制空间转向可能性空间。这种改革可以通过调查占主导地位的行为者联盟并确定重新配置这些权力安排的工具来实现。公共政策理论,如倡导联盟框架(ACF),有助于组织当前农业政策领域内的关系。实践者和其他学科的工作提供了一些工具,可以支持粮食系统倡导者为改变公共政策制定方式而采取的变革行动。在某种程度上,了解权力是如何组织的以及谁可能影响政策进程对变革至关重要。这篇反思性文章最后提出了一些工具和策略,供那些希望参与政府转变的人参考。所建议的工具和策略侧重于人(如政策拥护者)、过程(如政策杠杆点)和伙伴关系(如盟友关系)如何产生倡导者可以并确实参与政府变革的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信