Politicization Strategies in Domestic Trade Policy Making: Comparing Agriculture and Seafood Sectors in Norway

References

• Béland, D. and Cox, R. H., 2011, Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (New York: Oxford University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Blyth, M. M., 2002, Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Broekema, W., 2016, Crisis‐induced learning and issue politicization in the EU: The braer, sea empress, erika, and prestige oil spill disasters. Public Administration, 94(2), 381–398. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capoccia, G. and Kelemen, D., 2007, The study of critical junctures theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics, 59(3), 341–369. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100020852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C., Farsund, A. A., and Langhelle, O., 2017, The resilience of paradigm mixes: Food security in a post-exceptionalist trade regime. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(11), 1698–1715. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1334079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C. and Feindt, P., 2017, Post-exceptionalism in public policy: Transforming food and agricultural policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(11), 1565–1584. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1334081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C. and Swinbank, A., 2009, Ideas, Institution and Trade (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Dür, A., 2010, Protection for Exporters: Power and Discrimination in Transatlantic Trade Relations 1930-2010 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Farsund, A. A., 2014, Norway: Agricultural exceptionalism and the quest for free trade, in: O. Langhelle (Ed) International Trade Negotiations and Domestic Politics: The Intermestic Politics of Trade Liberalization (London: Routledge), pp. 148–173.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Farsund, A. A. and Langhelle, O., 2015, Nasjonalpolitikk og internasjonaleforhandlinger: Norskhandelspolitikketter 1995, in: I. A. Melchior and U. Sverdrup (Eds) Interessekonflikter I Norskhandelspolitikk (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget), pp. 105–129.
   Google Scholar
• Feindt, P., Schwindenhammer, S., and Tosun, J., 2020, Issue politicization and policy change in agri-food policy: A comparative theoretical perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flinders, M. and Buller, J., 2006, Depoliticization: Principles, tactics and tools. British Politics, 1(3), 293–318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200016
   Google Scholar
• George, A. L. and Bennet, A., 2005, Case Studies and Theory Development in Social Science. (Cambridge: MIT Press).
   Google Scholar
• Grant, W., 1995, Is agricultural policy still exceptional? The Political Quarterly, 66(3), 156–169. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1995.tb00473.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, P. A., 1993, Policy paradigm, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/422246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jentoft, S. and Mikalsen, K. H., 2014, Do national resources have to be centrally managed? Vested interests and institutional reform in Norwegian fisheries governance. Maritime Studies, 13(5). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/2212-9790-13-5
   Google Scholar
• Langhelle, O., Ed, 2014, International Trade Negotiations and Domestic Politics: The Intermestic Politics of Trade Liberalization (London: Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Langhelle, O. and Rommetvedt, H., 2004, The role of parliament in international relations and WTO negotiations: The case of Norway. World Trade Review, 3(2), 189–223. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745604001867
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J., and Thelen, K. (2010): A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney and K. Thelen (eds.): Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.), pp. 1-37
   Google Scholar
• Melchior, A., 2006, Tariffs in world seafood trade. FAO Fisheries Circular. NO. 1016. Rome: FAO.
   Google Scholar
• Mikalsen, K. H. and Jentoft, S., 2003, Limits to participation? On the history, structure and reform of Norwegian fisheries management. Marine Policy, 27(5), 397–407. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(03)00025-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikalsen, K. H. and Jentoft, S., 2008, Participatory practices in fisheries across Europe: Making stakeholders more responsible. Marine Policy, 32(2), 169–177. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2007.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Finstad, B.-P., 2014, Markedstilpasningog globalisering, in: I. N. Kolle (Ed.) Havet, fisken og oljen –1970- 615 2014. Bind 4 I Norges fiskeri- og kysthistorie (Bergen:Fagbokforlaget), pp. 215–250.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Frøland, H. O., 2015, Fisk versus landbruk i Norges handelsforhandlinger, in: A. Melchior and U. Sverdrup (Eds) Interessekonflikter i norsk handelspolitikk. (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget), pp. 130–154.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Innst. 101 S, 2015-2016, Innstilling frautenriks- og forsvarskomiteen om globalisering og handel. Muligheter og utfordringer for Norge i handelspolitikken.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Innst. 215 S, 2015-2016, Innstilling franæringskomiteen om en konkurransekraftig sjømatindustri.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Innst. 234 S, 2011-2012, Innstilling fraNæringskomiteen om landbrukspolitikken. Velkommen til bords.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Innst. 251 S, 2016-2017, Innstilling franæringskomiteen om Endring og utvikling. En fremtidsrettetjordbruksproduksjon.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Innst. 418 S, 2012-2013, Innstilling fraNæringskomiteen om verdens fremste sjømatnasjon.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Melchior, A. and Sverdrup, U., Ed, 2015, Interessekonflikter I Norsk handelspolitikk (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget).
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Meld. St. 10, 2015-2016, Enkonkurransekraftig sjømatindustri.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Meld. St. 11, 2016-2017, Endring ogutvikling. En fremtidsrettet jordbruksproduksjon.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Meld. St. 22, 2012-2013, Verdens fremstesjømatnasjon.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Meld. St. 29, 2014-2015, Globalisering og handel: muligheter og utfordringer for Norge i handelspolitikken.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Meld. St. 9, 2011-2012, Landbruks- ogmatpolitikken: Velkommen til bords.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Rommetvedt, H., 2017, Politikkensallmenngjøring. (Bergen: Fagbokforlaget).
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Stortingstidende, 2012, Referatframøte 12. april, Sak 2. pp. 2911–2954.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Stortingstidende, 2013, Referatframøte 10. juni, Sak 20. pp. 4022–4047.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Stortingstidende, 2016a, Referatframøte 19. januar, Sak 3. pp.1714–1731.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Stortingstidende, 2016b, Referatframøte 5. april, Sak 3. pp. 2470–2490.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian: Stortingstidende, 2017, Referatframøte25. april, Sak 7. pp. 2998–3024.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G., 2019, Institutional Theory in Political Science (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing).
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B.G., Fontaine, G., and Mendez, J-L (2018) Substance and Methods in the Comparative Study of Policy Change, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 20(2),133-141, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2017.1322764
   Google Scholar
• Pierson, P., 2000, Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. D., 1988, Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two level games. International Organizations, 42(3), 427–460. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rommetvedt, H. and Veggeland, F., 2017, Parliamentary government and corporatism at the crossroads: Principals and agents in Norwegian agricultural policy-making. Government and Opposition. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2017.32
   Google Scholar
• Schattschneider, E. E., 1935, Politics, Pressure and Tariffs (New York: Prentice-Hall).
   Google Scholar
• Skogstad, G., 1998, Ideas, paradigms, and institutions: Agricultural exceptionalism in the European Union and the United States. Governance, 11(4), 463–490. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, A. R. and Peterson, J., 2014, Parochial Global Europe. 21st Century Trade Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Zürn, M., 2016, Opening up Europe: Next steps in politicisation research. West European Politics, 39(1), 164–182. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2015.1081513
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar