This paper explores the dynamics giving momentum to the institutional construction of a policy field. This objective is pursued through the study of a case: the articulation and institutionalization of a policy field concerned with organic farming within the auspices of the common agricultural policy (CAP) of the European Union (EU) from 1980 to 2003. Applying a discursive institutional analytical framework focusing on the dynamics of institutional change it is concluded that-when it comes to the study of ideas-perhaps: (1) the CAP is not as sectorized a policy field as it is commonly considered to be, and (2) the European Parliament also has a role to play as an agent of change within the CAP.

This article is about variation in the expansion of organic farming sectors in different countries. It is suggested that variations in the absolute expansion of organic farming may be understood through a theoretical framework emphasizing the importance of the quality of the interrelationships among national institutions within organic farming as well as between organic and conventional agriculture. The theoretical proposition is illustrated by comparing the development in the institutional environment of organic farming in Denmark and Belgium from 1985 to 1999. In the Belgian case, the organic farming sector has expanded slowly due to an institutional environment of organic farming that has developed along regional lines and detached from the institutions of conventional farming. This development is seen as a result of an interrelationship characterized by pure competition where very little dialogue appears between organic and conventional farming. In the Danish case the organic farming sector has expanded throughout the period as a result of a series of creative conflicts, both within the organic farming sector and between the organic and conventional farming sectors.

and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution , reselling , loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

This introductory article to the special issue zooms in on the literature on political emotions with a specific focus on methodological questions of "how to study" political emotions. To the extent that methodological matters are addressed in the extant literature, the associated challenges are often portrayed as a clash between social science and natural science disciplines, a clash frequently illustrated by the meeting between political science and neuroscience. Rather than being a clash between academic disciplines, this article argues that many of the methodological challenges facing emotional research have their origin in scholars' diverse views on the relationship between themselves as researchers and political emotions as a research object. In the light of this acknowledgment, the article encircles and discusses the methodological challenges associated with three key conceptual distinctions between: (1) individual and collective emotions, (2) emotions and reason, and between (3) involuntary political emotions and the strategic usage of political emotions. Using the contributions to this special issue as illustrations, the article argues in favor of moving beyond mutually exclusive dichotomies regarding these conceptual distinctions and offers pathways for dealing with current methodological challenges to emotional research. It points to methodological pluralism, transparency, and context-sensitive research strategies.KEY WORDS: methodology, individual and collective emotions, emotions and reason, involuntary and strategic emotions bs_bs_banner

No abstract