Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mix-Up: Models of Governance and Framing Opportunities in U.S. and EU Consumer Policy

  • Published:
Journal of Consumer Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Students of comparative politics have highlighted different styles of regulation in the U.S. and Europe. These differences also apply to consumer policy and its different models of governance. The paper holds that governance is a key variable but adds aspects of issue framing. Two examples of consumer policy are analysed: regulation of genetically modified organisms and tobacco control. The case studies show that features of governance such as adversarial legalism or the precautionary principle are not necessarily linked to distinctive styles of regulation. Instead they vary across policy fields. Only a mix of governance elements and framing opportunities for interest groups can explain output and new directions of consumer policy. Dilemmas of collective action appear to be shrinking for consumers because framing trumps mobilization of members.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • J. E Beach (1998) ArticleTitleNo “killer tomatoes”: Easing federal regulation of genetically engineered plants Food and Drug Law Journal 53 178–183

    Google Scholar 

  • O Beaud (1999) Le sang contamine Behemoth Paris

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • T Bernauer L Caduff (2004) ArticleTitleIn whose interest? Pressure group politics, economic competition and environmental competition Journal of Public Policy 24 99–126 Occurrence Handle10.1017/S0143814X04000054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BioSicherheit (2003). Hürden für die Grüne Gentechnik. http://www.biosicherheit.de/aktuell/227.doku.html. 13.09.04

  • Buananno L., Zablotney S., & Keefer R. (2001) Politics versus science in the making of a new regulatory regime for food in Europe. European Integration Online Papers (EioP), 5. http://www.eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2001–012a.htm. 13.09.04

  • T Cowan (2002) The changing structure of agriculture and rural America. Emerging opportunities and challenges Novinka Books New York

    Google Scholar 

  • F Duina P Kurzer (2004) ArticleTitleSmoke in your eyes: The struggle over tobacco control in the European Union Journal of European Public Policy 11 57–77

    Google Scholar 

  • M. A Echols (1998) ArticleTitleFood safety regulation in the European Union and the United States: Different cultures, different laws Columbia Journal of European Law 4 525–543

    Google Scholar 

  • M. A Eisner (2000) Regulatory politics in transition EditionNumber2nd ed. Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2003). Smoking and the environment: Actions and attitudes. Special Eurobarometer 183/Wave 58.2. Brussels

  • European Union in the U.S. (2004). EU Commission pushes for GMO “green light.” News release, 10. http://www.eurunion.org/news/press/2004/20040010.htm. 14.09.04

  • C Evensen T Hoban E Woodrum (2000) ArticleTitleTechnology and morality: Influences on public attitudes toward biotechnology Knowledge, Technology and Policy 1 43–57

    Google Scholar 

  • S. A Glantz E. D Balbach (2000) Tobacco war. Inside the California battles University of California Press Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • E Grande (1996) ArticleTitleThe state and interest groups in a framework of multi-level-decision-making: The case of the European Union Journal of European Public Policy 3 318–338

    Google Scholar 

  • C Hodges (2001) ArticleTitleMulti-party actions: A European approach Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 11 321–354

    Google Scholar 

  • G Howells T Wilhelmsson (1997) EC consumer law Aldershot Ashgate

    Google Scholar 

  • K. W Hula (1999) Lobbying together. Interest group coalitions in legislative politics Georgetown University Press Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Janning (2004) Der Staat der Konsumenten. Plädoyer für eine politische Theorie des Verbraucherschutzes R. Czada (Eds) Politik und Markt. Sonderheft 34 der Politischen Vierteljahresschrift VS-Verlag Wiesbaden 151–185

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Jasanoff (1993) American exceptionalism and the political acknowledgment of risk E. J. Burger (Eds) Risk University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor, MI 61–81

    Google Scholar 

  • C Joerges E Vos (1999) EU committees: Social regulation, law, and politics Hart Publishing Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • C. O Jones (1994) The presidency in a separated system Brookings Institution Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • R. A Kagan (2001) Adversarial legalism. The American way of law Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • R. A Kagan W. P. Nelson (2001) The politics of tobacco regulation in the United States R. L. Rabin S. D. Sugarman (Eds) Regulating tobacco Oxford University Press Oxford 11–38

    Google Scholar 

  • G Majone (1999) ArticleTitleThe regulatory state and its legitimacy problems West European Politics 22 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • R. N Mayer (1989) The consumer movement. Guardians of the marketplace Hall/Twayne Boston: GK

    Google Scholar 

  • D McAdam J McCarthy M. N Zald (1996) Comparative perspectives on social movements. Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • M. D McCubbins T Schwartz (1984) ArticleTitleCongressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms American Journal of Political Science 28 165–179

    Google Scholar 

  • R Merrill J. K Francer (2000) ArticleTitleOrganizing federal food safety regulation Seton Hall Law Review 31 61–173

    Google Scholar 

  • J. S Mill (1859) On liberty Parker London

    Google Scholar 

  • M Neuman A Bitton S. A Glantz (2002) ArticleTitleTobacco industry strategies for influencing European Community tobacco advertising legislation The Lancet 359 1323–1330

    Google Scholar 

  • NGO-Online (2003) Gentech-Produzent Monsanto schließt Niederlassungen http://www. ngo-online.de/druckfrisch_druckausgabe.php4?Nr=7133&Beitragsauswahl. 18.12.03

  • M Olson (1965) The logic of collective action. Public goods and theory of groups Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • M Pertschuk (2001) Smoke in their eyes. Lessons in movement leadership from the tobacco wars Vanderbilt University Press Nashville, TN

    Google Scholar 

  • Philip Morris Companies Inc (2002) Form 10–Q, third quarter 2002, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Government Printing Office Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • R. L. Rabin (2001) The third wave of tobacco tort litigation R. L. Rabin S. D. Sugarman (Eds) Regulating tobacco Oxford University Press Oxford 176–206

    Google Scholar 

  • R. A Rhodes (1997) Understanding governance. Policy networks, governance, reflexivity, and accountability Open University Press Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  • P. H. Schuck (2002) Tort liability L. M. Salamon (Eds) The tools of government. A guide to the new governance Oxford University Press Oxford 466–489

    Google Scholar 

  • D Seidman (1977) ArticleTitleProtection or overprotection in drug regulation? The politics of policy analysis Regulation 6 22–37

    Google Scholar 

  • M Shapiro (1997) ArticleTitleThe problems of independent agencies in the United States and the European Union Journal of European Public Policy 4 276–291

    Google Scholar 

  • E. A Smith R. E Malone (2003) ArticleTitleThinking the “unthinkable”: Why Philip Morris considered quitting Tobacco Control 12 208–213 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s3ltVCjuw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle12773733

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • G. J Stigler (1971) ArticleTitleThe theory of economic regulation Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2 3–21

    Google Scholar 

  • C Strünck (2001) Why is there no mad cow disease in the United States? Comparing the politics of food safety in Europe and the United States University of California at Berkeley, Center for German and European Studies. Discussion Paper Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • S Tarrow (1996) Power in movement. Social movements, collective action and politics Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • M. P Traynor S. A Glantz (1996) ArticleTitleCalifornia’s tobacco tax initiative American Journal of Public Health 21 543–585 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymA2sbht1E%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • G Trumbull (2000) Contested ideas of the consumer: National strategies of product market regulation in France and Germany European University Institute. Working Paper 1 Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • T. H Tsoukalas S. A Glantz (2003) ArticleTitleDevelopment and destruction of the first state funded anti-smoking campaign in the USA Tobacco Control 12 214–220 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s3ltVCisg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle12773734

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • D Vogel (1986) National styles of regulation. Environmental policy in Great Britain and the United States Cornell University Press Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • D Vogel (1989) ArticleTitleAIDS and the politics of drug lag Public Interest 96 73–85 Occurrence Handle10294053

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • D Vogel (2001) The new politics of risk regulation in Europe London School of Economics and Political Science. London

    Google Scholar 

  • K. E Warner (2000) ArticleTitleThe economics of tobacco: Myths and realities Tobacco Control 9 78–89 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7ls12jsA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10691761

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • InstitutionalAuthorNameWHO (2002) The European Report on tobacco control policy World Health Organization London

    Google Scholar 

  • G. K Wilson (1998) Only in America? The politics of the United States in comparative perspective Chatham House Publishers Chatham, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • L. B Winn (1999) ArticleTitleSpecial labelling requirements for genetically engineered food: How sound are the analytical frameworks used by FDA and food producers? Food and Drug Law Journal 54 667–688 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD38%2FpsFyqtA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11824460

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Heinrich-Heine-University, 47048, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Christoph Strünck

Authors
  1. Christoph Strünck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Strünck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Strünck, C. Mix-Up: Models of Governance and Framing Opportunities in U.S. and EU Consumer Policy. J Consum Policy 28, 203–230 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-005-2981-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-005-2981-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation