Populism, Politicization and Policy Change in US and UK Agro-food Policies

Abstract

This paper compares the effects of right-wing populism on agro-food policy in the US and UK. In both countries, populist campaigns politicized agro-food issues but the effects on policy have been variable. In the United States, policy has remained relatively stable despite the politicization of agro-food issues under Trump. In the UK, amid the uncertainty over Brexit, an opportunity exists to incorporate a wider range of goals around the environment, climate change and public health. These differences reveal how features of the policy process and the party system mediate the effects of politicization on policy change.

Keywords:

• US
• UK
• agro-food
• populism
• politicization
• policy

Acknowledgments

The authors participated in the special issue work shop at Heidelberg University in March 2019, which was funded by the Heidelberg Center for the Environment and the Field of Focus 4 on ‘Self-Regulation and Regulation: Individuals and Societies.

Notes

1. To facilitate comparison, data for the US excludes districts where Republicans ran unopposed or did not field a candidate. The UK data excludes Scotland and Wales given the importance of regional nationalist parties.

2. The survey was emailed to the Farmers Weekly database and responses were self-selecting, although weighted for sectors and farm type etc.

3. Although both bills applied mainly to England, they included some sections on Wales and Northern Ireland. However the Scottish government refused to be included in the legislation and complained that it amounted to an unacceptable “power-grab” by Westminster (see House of Commons Library 2018, pp. 7–10).

4. Under Senate rules, 60 votes (out of 100 members) are required to end debate and call a vote. Unless the majority party has 60 members, the minority party can block progress on a bill. This forces the majority party to secure just enough support from the minority party to reach the 60-vote threshold (Krehbiel 1998).

5. According to the Constitution, Electoral College votes are apportioned according to the size of the congressional delegation (number of representatives and senators). Because each state has two senators regardless of population, rural states are over-represented in the Senate and, by extension, the Electoral College. With a few exceptions, states award all of its electoral votes to the candidate who wins a plurality of the popular vote.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Adam Sheingate

Adam Sheingate is Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University. His research examines American political development and comparative public policy.

Alan Greer

Alan Greer is Associate Professor in Politics and Public Policy at University of the West of England Bristol. He specialises in comparative public policy, especially on the politics of agriculture and food.