4.7 Article

Normative contestation in transitions 'in the making': Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig husbandry

期刊

RESEARCH POLICY
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 263-275

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.018

关键词

System innovation; Sustainability; Animal welfare; Agriculture; Normative directionality; Multiple stream approach

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies of system innovations mainly focused on historical cases that were driven by commercial motivations of pioneers and entrepreneurs. This article investigates a system innovation in the making that is driven by normative concerns, such as sustainability or animal welfare, initially formulated by outsiders like special-interest groups. Our central research question is: How, when and why is normative contestation of existing regimes effective in influencing the orientation of transitions in the making? The conceptual framework enriches innovation studies and the multi-level perspective with insights from social movement theory (SMT) and political science. SMT is used to analyze the build up of normative pressure (through framing, resource mobilization, and political opportunity structures). From political science we use the notion of multiple streams, in our analysis a problem, regulatory, market and technology stream. The research design consists of a comparative case study of pig husbandry systems. One case analyses the sub-sector of pregnant sows where normative pressures, after several decades, led to the changes advocated by the contestants. The second case concerns the sub-sector of pig fattening where normative pressure was less successful. The difference is partly explained by the normative pressure for pregnant sows being larger than for fattening pigs. The other part of the explanation is that in the first case normative pressure aligned better with the three other streams (regulatory, market and technology) to lead to the changes desired by the contestants. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据