Northern Firms, Standard-Setting Bodies, and Rising Powers

IF 1.3 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Amy A. Quark
{"title":"Northern Firms, Standard-Setting Bodies, and Rising Powers","authors":"Amy A. Quark","doi":"10.1525/sod.2019.0038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How does a standard-setting body based in the United States influence domestic regulatory contests in rising powers like China and India? And why might it be more successful in imposing its norms in one country or another? This paper answers these questions through a comparative analysis of domestic regulatory contention over pesticide residue standards for soft drinks in India and over nutritional standards for infant formula in China. Drawing together insights from science and technology studies, political economic approaches to standards and science, and the institutional approach to hegemonic transitions, I make three arguments. First, standard-setting bodies are increasingly available for hire by transnational firms; however, as their authority is not automatic, they are strategically cultivating scientific and policy networks in rising powers. Second, states in rising powers respond differently to the advocacy of standard-setting bodies, depending on distinct patterns of inter-firm and inter-state competition across the sectors to be regulated. Finally, because both standard-setting bodies and states in rising powers are compelled to build new coalitions of scientific and political actors to wield influence, these struggles are recasting the geographies of institutional power over standards in new ways.","PeriodicalId":36869,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/sod.2019.0038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

How does a standard-setting body based in the United States influence domestic regulatory contests in rising powers like China and India? And why might it be more successful in imposing its norms in one country or another? This paper answers these questions through a comparative analysis of domestic regulatory contention over pesticide residue standards for soft drinks in India and over nutritional standards for infant formula in China. Drawing together insights from science and technology studies, political economic approaches to standards and science, and the institutional approach to hegemonic transitions, I make three arguments. First, standard-setting bodies are increasingly available for hire by transnational firms; however, as their authority is not automatic, they are strategically cultivating scientific and policy networks in rising powers. Second, states in rising powers respond differently to the advocacy of standard-setting bodies, depending on distinct patterns of inter-firm and inter-state competition across the sectors to be regulated. Finally, because both standard-setting bodies and states in rising powers are compelled to build new coalitions of scientific and political actors to wield influence, these struggles are recasting the geographies of institutional power over standards in new ways.
北方企业、标准制定机构和新兴大国
总部设在美国的标准制定机构如何影响中国和印度等新兴大国的国内监管竞争?为什么它在一个国家或另一个国家推行自己的规范会更成功?本文通过对印度软饮料农药残留标准和中国婴儿配方奶粉营养标准的国内监管争议的比较分析,回答了这些问题。从科学和技术研究、对标准和科学的政治经济学方法、以及对霸权过渡的制度方法等方面,我提出了三个观点。首先,跨国公司越来越多地雇用标准制定机构;然而,由于它们的权威不是自动产生的,它们正在战略性地与新兴大国建立科学和政策网络。其次,新兴大国的国家对标准制定机构的主张反应不同,这取决于需要监管的部门之间不同的公司间和国家间竞争模式。最后,由于新兴大国的标准制定机构和国家都被迫建立科学和政治参与者的新联盟来施加影响,这些斗争正在以新的方式重塑制度权力对标准的影响。
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
Sociology of Development
Sociology of Development Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
14
×
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