Skip to main content

The limits of regulatory convergence: globalization and GMO politics in the south

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics volume 9, pages 113–133 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

Is globalization promoting regulatory convergence in agricultural biotechnology policies in the South? This article examines the nature and limits of regulatory convergence in the field of agri-biotechnology and investigates the effects that international forces have on biotechnology and biosafety policies in developing countries. Based on detailed case studies of Mexico, China and South Africa this article shows that these three leading biotechnology countries in the South are exposed to powerful international influences but are responding to the regulatory challenges of genetically modified organisms (GMO) adoption in distinctive ways. The existing regulatory polarization between US and EU biotechnology approaches has not forced a convergence around either of these two international models. GMO policies in the South do not simply follow the binary logic of the US–EU regulatory conflict. Instead, they integrate elements from both regulatory approaches and are steering a course that suggests substantial regulatory diversity in the South. The globalization of biotechnology thus goes hand in hand with regulatory diversity in the developing world. Furthermore, regulatory polarization between the EU and US has helped to open up political space in key developing countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Although Mexico is a member of the OECD, in areas of relevance to agricultural biotechnology it exhibits key characteristics of a developing country: a relatively large proportion of the population is engaged in agriculture, particularly subsistence farming; and the country is a centre of origin and diversity of key crops subject to genetic engineering, such as maize.

  2. Interviews with regulators and stakeholders were conducted in China in August 2004, in Mexico in June 2004 and in South Africa in May 2005. In order to respect interviewees’ requests for anonymity, only their institutional affiliation is revealed here.

  3. See, e.g. the detailed objections by the African Center for Biosafety at www.biosafetyafrica.net.

Abbreviations

ACB:

African Center for Biosafety (South Africa)

CIBIOGEM:

Comisión Intersecretarial de Bioseguridad y Organismos Genéticamente Modificados—Inter-Sectoral Commission on Biosafety and Genetically Modified Organisms, Mexico

CPB:

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

DTI:

Department of Trade and Industry (South Africa)

EU:

European Union

GATT:

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GM:

Genetically modified

GMO:

Genetically modified organism

NAFTA:

North American Free Trade Agreement

MOA:

Ministry of Agriculture (China)

MOST:

Ministry of Science of Technology (China)

OECD:

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

SEPA:

State Environmental Protection Agency (China)

SPS:

WTO Agreement on Applications of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

US:

United States

WTO:

World Trade Organization

References

  • ACB (African Center for Biosafety). (2004). Objection to Public Notice by Monsanto SA (Pty) Ltd, Published in Business Day, Monday 19th January 2004: Application for commodity clearance permit for genetically modified wheat. 9 February.

  • Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bail, C., Falkner, R., & Marquard, H. (Eds.). (2002). The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment and development. London: RIIA/Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. J. (1991). What is policy convergence and what causes it? British Journal of Political Science, 21, 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer, T. (2003). Genes, trade, and regulation: The seeds of conflict in food biotechnology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer, T., & Aerni, P. (2007). Competition for public trust: Causes and consequences and consequences of extending the transatlantic biotech conflict to developing countries. In R. Falkner (Ed.), The international politics of genetically modified food: Diplomacy, trade and law (pp. 138–154). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F. (2002). Institutions for scientific advice: Global environmental assessments and their influence in developing countries. Global Governance, 8, 195–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biowatch. (2006). Parliamentary committee passes genetically modified organisms amendment bill despite misgivings. Press release, 8 August.

  • Biowatch. (2008). The Biowatch bulletin: March/April 2008. Capetown, South Africa.

  • Busch, P.-O., & Jörgens, H. (2005). The international sources of policy convergence: Explaining the spread of environmental policy innovations. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cevallos, D. (2008). Mexico: New Rules pave the way for transgenic crops. Inter Press Service (IPS) News Agency, March 20.

  • Chauvet, M., & Galvez, A. (2005). Learning about biosafety in Mexico: Between competitiveness and conservation. International Journal of Biotechnology, 7, 62–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • China Daily. (2004). GMO import ruling stirs debate. China Daily, 6 April.

  • Clapp, J. (2006). Unplanned exposure to genetically modified organisms: Divergent responses in the global south. Journal of Environment and Development, 15, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, D. W. (2001). Globalization and policy convergence. International Studies Review, 3, 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, D. W. (2005). Globalization, harmonization and competition: The different pathways to policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 841–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, D. W. (2007). All politics is global: Explaining international regulatory regimes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC. Group. (2002). Genetic pollution in Mexico’s Center of Maize Diversity. Backgrounder, 8(2). Published by Food First: Institute for Food and Development Policy.

  • Falkner, R. (2006). International sources of environmental policy change in China: The case of genetically modified food. The Pacific Review, 19, 473–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, R. (2007). The political economy of ‘normative power’ Europe: EU environmental leadership in international biotechnology regulation. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 507–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitting, E. (2006). Importing corn, exporting labor: The neoliberal corn regime, GMOs and the erosion of Mexican biodiversity. Agriculture and Human Values, 23, 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GMO Act. (1997). ([South African] Genetically Modified Organisms Act). No. 15 of 1997. Government Gazette, 383, No. 18029, 23 May.

  • Gourevitch, P. (2002). Domestic politics and international relations. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 309–328). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. (2004). When global is local: Negotiating safe use of biotechnology. In S. Jasanoff & M. Long-Martello (Eds.), Earthly politics: Local and global in environmental governance (pp. 127–148). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. (2008a). Global biosafety governance: Emergence and evolution. In O. R. Young, W. B. Chambers, J. Kim, & C. ten Have (Eds.), Institutional interplay: Biosafety and trade (pp. 19–46). Tokyo: United Nations University (UNU) Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. (2008b). Transparency under scrutiny: Information disclosure in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., & Falkner, R. (2006). The influence of the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety: Comparing Mexico, China and South Africa. Global Environmental Politics, 6, 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, C. (2000). Contemporary capitalism, globalization, regionalization and the persistence of national variation. Review of International Studies, 26, 509–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heichel, S., Pape, J., & Sommerer, T. (2005). Is there convergence in convergence research? Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 817–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hepeng, J. (2008). Big funding for GM research. Chemistry World, 26 March. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/March/26030801.asp).

  • Herrera-Estrella, L. (1999). Transgenic plants for tropical regions: Some considerations about their development and their transfer to the small farmer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (United States), 26, 5978–5981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, P., & Thompson, G. (1996). Globalization in question: The international economy and the possibilities of governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, A. G. (2002). The history of globalization—and the globalization of history. In A. G. Hopkins (Ed.), Globalization in world history (pp. 11–46). London: Pimlico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., & Wang, Q. (2003). Biotechnology policy and regulation in China. IDS Working Paper 195. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

  • James, C. (2008). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2008. ISAAA Brief 39.

  • Keohane, R. O., & Milner, H. (Eds.). (1996). Internationalization and domestic politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, C. (1983). The future of industrial societies: Convergence or continuing diversity? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C. (2005). Introduction: Cross-national policy convergence: Concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 764–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakhan, S. E. (2006). The Emergence of modern biotechnology in China. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3, 333–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L. (2007). The transatlantic agbiotech conflict as a problem and opportunity for EU regulatory policies. In R. Falkner (Ed.), The international politics of genetically modified food: Diplomacy, trade and law (pp. 118–137). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Faur, D. (2005). The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598, 12–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijie, C. (2002). China. In C. Bail, R. Falkner, & H. Marquard (Eds.), The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Reconciling trade in biotechnology with environment and development (pp. 160–165). London: RIIA/Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahr, C. (2008). China’s genetically altered food boom. Time Magazine, February 18.

  • Massieu, Y., Gonzalez, R. L., Chauvet, M., Casteneda, Y., & Barajas, R. E. (2000). Transgenic potatoes for small-scale farmers: A case study of Mexico. Biotechnology and Development Monitor, 41, 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayet, M. (2004). Submissions on South Africa’s genetically modified organisms amendments bill. Published 8 October 2004. Johannesburg: African Center for Biosafety.

  • Mayet, M. (2006). Is South Africa in the US WTO sights over GM import ban. Johannesburg: African Center for Biosafety.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millstone, E., & Van Zwanenberg, P. (2003). Food and agricultural biotechnology policy: How much autonomy can developing countries exercise? Development Policy Review, 21, 655–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J, Rensburg, J. B. J., Hoffmann J. H., & Lazarus, P. (2005). Good regulatory practices for developing countries—lessons learned in South Africa from an appeal under the GMO Act. Paper presented at the 9th ICABR international conference on agricultural biotechnology: Ten years later. Ravello, Italy, July 6–10, 2005.

  • Murphy, J., & Levidow, L. (2006). Governing the transatlantic conflict over agricultural biotechnology: Contending coalitions, trade liberalisation and standard setting. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • NBS (National Biotechnology Strategy, South Africa). (2001). Department of Science and Technology. http://www.dst.gov.za/programmes/biodiversity/biotechstrategy.pdf.

  • Newell, P. (2003). Globalization and the governance of biotechnology. Global Environmental Politics, 3, 56–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, P. (2007). Corporate power and ‘bounded autonomy’ in the global politics of biotechnology. In R. Falkner (Ed.), The international politics of genetically modified food: Diplomacy, trade and law (pp. 67–84). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osava, M. (2006). Biosafety protocol alive, but restricted. Bilaterals.org, IPS. 18 March. http://www.bilaterals.org/article-print.php3?id_article=4174.

  • Paarlberg, R. L. (2001). The politics of precaution: Genetically modified crops in developing countries. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, M., & Shaffer, G. (2005). Biotechnology policy. In H. Wallace, W. Wallace, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Policy-making in the European Union (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakash, A., & Kollman, K. L. (2003). Biopolitics in the EU and the US: A race to the bottom or convergence to the top. International Studies Quarterly, 47, 617–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quist, D., & Chapela, I. (2001). Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature, 414, 541–543.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. (1997). Has globalization gone too far? Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

  • Rosenau, J. (1995). Distant proximities: the dynamics and dialectics of globalization. In B. Hettne (Ed.), International political economy: Understanding global disorder. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugaber, C. (2002). U.S. officials blast China’s rules on biotechnology after negotiations fail. International Environment Reporter, 13 February, p. 157.

  • Sasson, A. (2000). Biotechnologies in developing countries: present and future. Volume 3: Regional and sub-regional cooperation and joint ventures. Paris, Barcelona: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheingate, A. D. (2006). Promotion versus precaution: The evolution of biotechnology policy in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 243–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, B. A. (2001). The international politics of harmonization: The case of capital market regulation. International Organization, 55, 589–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, D. A. (2004). Capital rules: The domestic politics of international regulatory harmonization. International Organization, 58, 531–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, A. O. (1999). The (limited) role of regulatory harmonization in international goods and services markets. Journal of International Economic Law, 2, 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (1995). Trading up. Consumer and environmental regulation in a global economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. & Kagan, R. (Eds) (2002). Dynamics of regulatory change: How globalization affects national regulatory policies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

  • Wade, R. (1996). Globalization and its limits: Reports of the death of the national economy are greatly exaggerated. In S. Berger & R. Dore (Eds.), National diversity and global capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, L. (1999). Globalisation and national governance: Antinomy or interdependence? Review of International Studies, 25, 59–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolson, R. (2006). Country Study: South Africa (Report for the NYU Project on International GMO Regulatory Conflicts). New York: NYU School of Law.

  • Wolson, R. (2007). Assessing the prospects for adoption of biofortified crops in South Africa. AgBioForum, 10, 184–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (1994). Molecular politics: Developing American and British regulatory policy for genetic engineering, 1972–1982. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, A. R. (2003). Political transfer and “trading up”? Transatlantic trade in genetically modified food and U.S. politics. World Politics, 55, 457–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. Y., Chambers, W. B., Kim, J., & ten Have, C. (Eds.). (2008). Institutional interplay: Biosafety and trade. Tokyo: United Nations University (UNU) Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK

    Robert Falkner

  2. Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, Netherlands

    Aarti Gupta

Authors
  1. Robert Falkner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aarti Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Falkner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Falkner, R., Gupta, A. The limits of regulatory convergence: globalization and GMO politics in the south. Int Environ Agreements 9, 113–133 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-009-9094-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-009-9094-x

Keywords

  • Globalization
  • Regulatory convergence
  • Agricultural biotechnology
  • Biosafety
  • Developing countries