Up and down the pecking order,1

1. With acknowledgement and apologies to Anthony Downs (1972).

what matters and when in issue definition: the case of rbST in the EU

ABSTRACT

This article examines the nature and degree of control which powerful actors have over the process of issue definition. In particular, it explores the ways in which knowledge and time can mediate, condition and direct decision-makers' attention from one definition to another. The characterization of the ‘pecking order’ is introduced to capture the process of redefinition around the biotech product bovine somatotrophin (rbST) in the European Union (EU). The movement of different interpretive dimensions of rbST up and down the pecking order is analysed through a synthesis of Haas' work on epistemic communities and Pierson's on issue feedback and conjunctures. This yields six propositions explaining the manner in which interpretations were prioritized and reshuffled across the issue's life span. It is concluded that knowledge and time mediate choice by presenting decision-makers with opportunities to further their strategic aims and also, on occasion, by exerting independent force – particularly where knowledge is under development or an issue is caught up in a complex web of linkages.

Keywords:

• Bovine somatotrophin (rbST)
• epistemic communities
• feedback and conjunctures
• issue definition
• issue linkage

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is based on doctoral research funded by Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) studentship R00429834387. Previous versions of this paper were presented as part of the University of Exeter's GRiP seminar series and at the ECPR joint sessions in Nicosia on 25–30 April 2006. The author is grateful to the participants of workshop 12 (on ‘The Comparative Dynamics of Problem Framing: How Science and Power Speak to Each Other’) for their constructive comments and feedback. Particular thanks are extended to Frank Baumgartner, Bruce Doern, Peter Haas, Oliver James, Bryan Jones, Yannis Karagiannis, Sebastiaan Princen and Claudio Radaelli, and two anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.

Notes

1. With acknowledgement and apologies to Anthony Downs (1972).

2. I am grateful to one of my anonymous referees for suggesting this reference.

3. The author conducted thirty-eight semi-structured interviews with active and retired scientists, civil servants, politicians and interest group actors.

4. I am grateful to one of my anonymous referees for suggesting this reference.

5. Pierson's definition of positive feedback as synonymous with incrementalism contrasts with its deployment by other policy analysts. Notably, Jones and Baumgartner (2005) use it to denote policy change.

6. At that time, over half of Community dairy farming comprised smallholdings (i.e. ten cows or fewer) – a yield enhancer which would drive down prices would hit these farms hardest (EP 1988a, 1988b).

7. This is now known as DG Enterprise and Industry.

8. This has been adapted from a similar assertion made by Adler and Haas concerning the capacity of epistemic communities to create reality (1992: 381).