Hybridization of food governance: An analytical framework

Verbruggen, Paul; Havinga, T.

doi:10.4337/9781785361708.00008

Cited by 20 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Lipsky (/2010, p. xi), street‐level bureaucrats are professionals who implement a public policy, interact directly with clients, and enjoy high discretion and relative autonomy from organizational authority. Regulatory processes entail (a) agenda setting and decision making, (b) adoption and implementation, (c) monitoring compliance, (d) enforcement, and (e) evaluation and review (Verbruggen & Havinga, ). As implementing agents, both public and private veterinarians are primarily active in Phase c, while also having some tasks in Phase d. They oversee compliance of farmers with the same official regulations, although with differing frequencies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Verbruggen and Havinga () highlight, hybridization implies that actors with diverging rationalities are involved in regulation—here, public and for‐profit implementers. Second, the same actors can simultaneously have several regulatory roles.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, workers in the private sector now represent public policy to the people (Smith & Lipsky, , p. 13). Hybrid policy implementation operates at the intersection between public and private, for‐profit, and nonprofit sectors; public policy goals coexist with market‐led goals such as efficiency and profit (Deleon, ; Verbruggen & Havinga, ). In consequence, frontline workers (also called street‐level bureaucrats) have to balance the rationalities and demands of the state and the market (Skelcher & Smith, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, the introduction of market principles has transformed public service delivery into a hybrid. However, little is known about how these changes are reflected in the attitudes of private implementing agents: The hybridization literature neglects individuals, and street‐level bureaucracy research has disregarded hybridization. This article extends Hupe and Hill's () accountability regimes framework to introduce the market as an additional accountability regime alongside state, profession, and society. Using a configurational approach, the article explores how public and private food safety inspectors in Switzerland perceive the multiple norms for behavior stemming from their environment. Results suggest that the plural accountabilities of for‐profit street‐level bureaucrats can increase the dilemmas involved in their work. Under certain circumstances, for‐profit street‐level bureaucrats have particular difficulties reconciling rule pressure with market incentives and client demands. The extended accountability regimes framework fruitfully captures such dilemmas and helps identify suitable governance responses.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Globalisation of food supply chains, growing economic power of retailers, decreasing confidence in government regulation, emerging ethical concerns among consumers, and recurrent food safety incidents means that hybridisation of food governance has occurred in two dimensions: firstly the national and international dimension; and secondly between government, producers and third-party organisations (Zhang, Qiao, Wang, Pu, Yu & Zheng, 2015;Verbruggen, 2016;Verbruggen & Havinga, 2017). In this paper, the second dimension is the focus and specifically the role of government and third-party organisations in China.…”

Section: Evolving Models Of Safety Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst official food safety governance in China has improved significantly in past decades, problems still remain (Liu, 2010;Lam, Remais, Fung, Xu & Sun, 2013;Holtkamp, Liu & McGuire, 2014;Unnevehr & Hoffmann, 2015). Suggested reasons for this include: unclear and overlapped responsibilities for different authorities (Liu, 2010;Holtkamp, Liu & McGuire, 2014;Verbruggen & Havinga, 2017); poor coordination and communication between departments and regions (Liu, 2010;Jia & Jukes, 2013), lax enforcement (Pei et al 2011;Yang, 2013), low penalties (Liang, 2011), inferior legal requirements (Jia & Jukes, 2013;Yang, 2013); numerous small-scale producers (Peng, Li, Xia, Qi & Li, 2015;Verbruggen & Havinga, 2017), and fragmented consumer groups (Zhou, 2017). In this nexus, third-party governance began to develop.…”

Section: Take In Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

The role of media reporting in food safety governance in China: A dairy case study

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using dairy products as the case study of interest, the aim of the research is to explore the role of the media in food safety governance in China. Thematic content analysis is used to evaluate government and media reports (n = 233) on dairy related food safety incidents in China between 2004 and 2017 with differences identified between government and media reporting. The data is extracted from an online database (Zhichuchuangwai). The results show that the government performs better on exposing incidents earlier within the 14-year period but the news media plays a complementary role in food safety governance exposing a wider coverage of incidents. This study extends the current literature on the role of the news media in food safety governance in China by focusing on a single food sector (dairy), but on a national scale.

show abstract

Policy responses to foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States and Germany

Meagher

2021

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores differences in national responses to foodborne disease outbreaks, addressing both the sources of policy divergence and their implications for public health and coordinated emergency response. It presents findings from a comparative study of two multi-state E. coli outbreaks, one in the United States (2006) and one in Germany (2011), demonstrating important differences in how risk managers understood and responded to each nation’s first major outbreak associated with fresh produce. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of 36 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and hundreds of archival documents, this paper traces how social constructions of the E. coli risk interacted with organizational dynamics among state and industry actors to produce divergent policy outcomes: the U.S. outbreak was understood primarily as an agricultural problem that led to an industry-led agricultural solution, whereas the German outbreak was understood as a human disease problem that did not result in a substantial policy response once the acute health crisis passed. The paper concludes by discussing how these policy processes generate partial solutions to foodborne contamination that expose modern societies to systemic vulnerabilities.

show abstract

Hybridization of food governance: An analytical framework

Cited by 20 publications

References 2 publications

Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation

Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation

The role of media reporting in food safety governance in China: A dairy case study

Policy responses to foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States and Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About