This study challenges the assumption that abstract “globalization” forces are driving transformations in the relationships between states and markets. Employing three cases of policy debate regarding the regulation of agricultural biotechnology (ag‐biotech), we examine the role of discourse in the formation of neoliberal regulatory schemes. We show that one important mechanism for the successful institutionalization of neoliberalism in the area of ag‐biotech has been the linking of neoliberal discourse with a discourse of scientism. This strategic combination of discourses has been used by advocates of biotechnology to depoliticize ag‐biotech—that is, to remove it further from political debate and state intervention. However, in each case examined here, certain state actors resisted industry demands for minimal regulation, and in each context this resistance produced markedly different outcomes.

The history of attention to local variation in science and technology studies notwithstanding, there is a growing emphasis in the study of science policy on global convergence. In this paper, we undertake a multi-state comparative study of agricultural biotechnology policies, illustrating the continuing value of attending to policy variation and the factors that mold it. We acknowledge the growing influence of supranational entities and transnational cultural exchanges in shaping policy. However, our research does not indicate the homogenization of agricultural biotechnology policies across the globe. Instead, we find three broad models of agricultural biotechnology governance: 'liberal science-based' regulation, 'precautionary science-based' regulation, and 'social values-based' regulation. While states are constrained by global and local factors, they actively shape policies by blending parts of these three policy models in distinct ways.