Farm animal welfare policymaking in the European Parliament – a social identity perspective on voting behaviour

References

• Béland, D. (2017). Identity, politics and public policy. Critical Policy Studies, 11(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2016.1159140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, R., & Appleby, M. (2010). Animal welfare policy in the European Union. In A. Oskam, G. Meester, & H. Jan Silvis (Eds.), EU policy for agriculture, food and rural areas (pp. 243–252). Wageningen Academic Publ.
   Google Scholar
• Bonaiuto, M., Carrus, G., Martorella, H., & Bonnes, M. (2002). Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of natural protected areas. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 631–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00121-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowler, S., & Farrell, D. M. (1995). The Organizing of the European Parliament: Committees, specialization and co-ordination. British Journal of Political Science, 2(2), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400007158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buller, H., Blokhuis, H., Jensen, P., & Keeling, L. (2018). Towards farm animal welfare and sustainability. animals, 8(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8060081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, M. S., & Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission, European. (2014). 40 Years of animal welfare. https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_infograph_40-years-of-aw.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Commission, European. (2016). Special Eurobarometer 442: Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare. https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2096_84_4_442_ENG
   Google Scholar
• Commission, European. (2017). Commercial rabbit farming in the European Union. Publications Office of the European Union.https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5029d977-387c-11e8-b5fe-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
   Google Scholar
• Commission, European. (2018). Special Eurobarometer 473 – Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP. https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2161_88_4_473_ENG
   Google Scholar
• Commission, European. (2020). Statisitical Factsheets Agriculture. Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/farming/facts-and-figures/markets/production/production-country/statistical-factsheets_en
   Google Scholar
• Cornish, A., Raubenheimer, D., & McGreevy, P. (2016). What we know about the public’s level of concern for farm animal welfare in food production in developed countries. animals, 6, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6110074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costello, R., & Thomson, R. (2016). Bicameralism, nationality and party cohesion in the European Parliament. Party Politics, 22(6), 773–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068814563972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C., & Feindt, P. H. (2017). Post-exceptionalism in public policy: Transforming food and agricultural policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(11), 1565–1584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1334081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C., Smed, S., Andersen, L. M., & Schvartzman, Y. (2014). Improving eco-labelling as an environmental policy instrument: Knowledge, trust and organic consumption. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 16(4), 559–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2013.879038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C., & Swinbank, A. (2012). An introduction to the ‘new’ politics of agriculture and food. Policy and Society, 31(4), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2012.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EFSA. (2005). Scientific opinion of the scientific panel on animal health and welfare on ‘The impact of the current housing and husbandry systems on the health and welfare of farmed domestic rabbits’. Publications Office of the EU, 267, 1–31.
   Google Scholar
• Eldridge, J. J., & Gluck, J. P. (1996). Gender differences in attitudes toward animal research. Ethics & Behavior, 6(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0603_5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engler, F., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2018). Left parties, voter preferences, and economic policy-making in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(11), 1620–1638. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1545796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eur-Lex. (2007). Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12007L/TXT
   Google Scholar
• European Court of Auditors. (2018). Animal welfare in the EU: Closing the gap between ambitious goals and practical implementation. https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=47557
   Google Scholar
• FAWC. (2016). Sustainable agriculture and farm animal welfare. London. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/593479/Advice_about_sustainable_agriculture_and_farm_animal_welfare_-_final_2016.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Greer, A. (2017). Post-exceptional politics in agriculture: An examination of the 2013 CAP reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 2(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1334080
   Google Scholar
• Grethe, H. (2017). The economics of farm animal welfare. Annual Review of Ressource Economics, 9(75), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey, D., & Hubbard, C. (2013). Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure. Food Policy, 38, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haslam, C., Jetten, J., Haslam, S. A., Pugliese, C., & Tonks, J. (2011). I remember therefore I am, and I am therefore I remember: Exploring the contributions of episodic and semantic self-knowledge to strength of identity. British Journal of Psychology, 102(2), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712610X508091
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenteufel, P., Smyrl, M., Genieys, W., & Moreno-Fuentes, F. J. (2010). Programmatic actors and the transformation of European health care states. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 35(4), 517–538. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-2010-015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hix, S. (2002). Parliamentary behavior with two principals: Preferences, parties, and voting in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 688–698. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hix, S. (2004). Electoral institutions and legislative behavior – explaining voting defection in the European Parliament. World Politics, 56(2), 194–223. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2004.0012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hix, S. (2008). Towards a partisan theory of EU politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(8), 1254–1265. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760802407821
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hix, S., & Høyland, B. (2014). Political behaviour in the European Parliament. In M. Shane, T. Saalfeld, & K. W. Strøm (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of legislative studies (pp. 591–608). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hix, S., Kreppel, A., & Noury, A. (2003). The party system in the European Parliament: Collusive or competitive. Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(2), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00424
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hix, S., Noury, A., & Roland, G. (2006). Dimensions of politics in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 494–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00198.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornung, J., & Bandelow, N. C. (2020). The programmatic elite in German health policy. Collective action and sectoral history. Public Policy and Administration, 35(3), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0952076718798887
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornung, J., Bandelow, N. C., & Vogeler, C. S. (2019). Social identities in the policy process. Policy Sciences, 52(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9340-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lever, J., & Evans, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and farm animal welfare: Towards sustainable development in the food industry? In S. O. Idowu & S. Vertigans (Eds.), Stages of corporate social responsibility. CSR, sustainability, ethics & governance (pp. 205–222). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lundmark, F., Berg, C., Schmid, O., Behdadi, D., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2014). Intentions and values in animal welfare legislation and standards. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(6), 991–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9512-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2011). Animal Welfare Economics. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 33(4), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppr036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElroy, G., & Benoit, K. (2011). Policy positioning in the European Parliament. European Union Politics, 13(1), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116511416680
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlbock, M. (2012). National versus European: Party control over members of the European Parliament. West European Politics, 35(3), 607–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.665743
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlbock, M., & Tosun, J. (2018). Responsiveness to different national interests: Voting behaviour on genetically modified organisms in the council of the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(2), 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (1991). Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1991.tb00930.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, C., Carey, R., De Costa, J., & Scrinis, G. (2017). Can the hidden hand of the market be an effective and legitimate regulator? The Case of Animal Welfare Under a Labeling for Consumer Choice Policy Approach. Regulation & Governance, 11(4), 368–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12147
   Google Scholar
• Parliament, E. (2017b). Report on minimum standards for the protection of farm rabbits. Brussels https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0011_EN.html
   Google Scholar
• Parliament, E. (2019). Report on the implementation of Council Regulation No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport within and outside the EU. Brussels. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2019-0057_EN.html
   Google Scholar
• Pollex, J. (2017). Regulating consumption for sustainability? Why the European Union chooses information instruments to foster sustainable consumption. European Policy Analysis, 3(1), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1005
   Google Scholar
• Ringe, N. (2010). Who decides, and how? Preferences, uncertainty, and policy choice in the European Parliament. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roger, L., & Winzen, T. (2015). Party groups and committee negotiations in the European Parliament: Outside attention and the anticipation of plenary conflict. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(3), doi: 0.1080/13501763.2014.941379
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rooij, S. J. G., de Lauwere, C. C., & van der Ploeg, J. D. (2010). Entrapped in group Solidarity? Animal welfare, the ethical positions of farmers and the difficult search for alternatives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(4), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2010.528882
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmid, O., & Kilchsperger, R. (2010). Overview of animal welfare standards and initiatives in selected EU and third countries. http://www.econwelfare.eu/publications/econwelfared1.2report_update_nov2010.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Schwindenhammer, S. (2017). Global organic agriculture policy-making through standards as an organizational field: When institutional dynamics meet entrepreneurs. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(11), 1678–1697. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1334086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spoolder, H., Bokma, M., Harvey, D., Keeling, L., Majewsky, E., Roest, K. d., & Schmid, O. (2011). EconWelfare findings, conclusions and recommendations concerning effective policy instruments in the route towards higher animal welfare in the EU. http://www.econwelfare.eu/publications/EconWelfareD0.5_Findings_conclusions_and_recommendations.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Strohbach, M. W., Kohler, M. L., Dauber, J., & Klimek, S. (2015). High nature value farming: From indication to conservation. Ecological Indicators, 57, 557–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomann, E., Trein, P., & Maggetti, M. (2019). What’s the problem? Multilevel governance and problem-solving. European Policy Analysis, 5(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1062
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, E. F., Bury, S. M., Louis, W. R., Amiot, C. E., Molenberghs, P., Crane, M. F., & Decety, J. (2019). Vegetarian, vegan, activist, radical: Using latent profile analysis to examine different forms of support for animal welfare. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(6), https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218824407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosun, J. (2017). Party support for post-exceptionalism in agri-food politics and policy: Germany and the United Kingdom compared. Journal of European Public Policy, 1623–1640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1334083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Transue, J. E. (2007). Identity salience, identity Acceptance, and racial policy attitudes: American national identity as a uniting force. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00238.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bock, B., & Roe, E. (2008). European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113(4), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogeler, C. S. (2017). Farm animal welfare policy in comparative perspective: Determinants of cross-national differences in Austria. Germany, and Switzerland. European Policy Analysis, 3(1), 20–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1015
   Google Scholar
• Vogeler, C. S. (2019). Why do farm animal welfare regulations vary between EU member states? A comparative analysis of societal and party political determinants in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(2), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12794
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogeler, C. S. (2020). Politicizing farm animal welfare: A comparative study of policy change in the United States of America. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, Online First, https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1742069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, K. C. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life (studies in communication, media, and public opinion). Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whitley, C. T., Gunderson, R., & Charters, M. (2018). Public receptiveness to policies promoting plant-based diets: Framing effects and social psychological and structural influences. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2017.1304817
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeates, J. W. (2018). Naturalness and animal welfare. Animals, 8(53), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8040053
   Google Scholar