Outsourcing Regulatory Decision-making: “International” Epistemic Communities, Transnational Firms, and Pesticide Residue Standards in India

Abstract

How do “international” epistemic communities shape regulatory contests between transnational firms and civil society organizations in the Global South? With the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO), member states committed to basing trade-restrictive national regulations on science-based “international” standards set by “international” standard-setting bodies. Yet we know little about how the WTO regime has shaped the operation of epistemic communities within standard-setting bodies and, in turn, how standard-setting bodies articulate with national policy-making processes in the Global South. Building on work in the new political sociology of science, I argue that neoliberal globalization and the establishment of the WTO have created incentives for Western epistemic communities to at once cast themselves as “international” under the WTO regime and orient their scientific agendas toward the priorities of transnational firms. Moreover, this transformation of epistemic communities has created opportunities for transnational firms facing contentious policy environments in the Global South to effectively outsource regulatory decision-making to “international” epistemic communities that can claim legal status under the WTO regime. Empirically, I focus on the case of one Western epistemic community—the Association of Analytical Communities International—and its claim to epistemic jurisdiction over pesticide residue standards for soft drinks in India.

Opening the ‘Black Box’ of Regulation-making for Bottled Water Quality Standards in India

“…They believed that ‘international’ standards are rigorous and scientifically superior. This view was supported not only by transnational manufacturing firms (as reported by Quark, 2018), but also by experts representing public organisations and civil society groups. For major domestic and international firms, it meant the enhanced acceptability of their products among consumers.…”

“…A higher representation of ‘neutral’ scientific experts could have challenged the tendency of other stakeholders to uncritically adopt standards set by international regulatory agencies. Quark (2018) suggests that transnational firms in India tend to outsource regulatory decision-making to ‘international’ epistemic communities. We argue that government actors (largely bureaucrats representing different ministries) follow the same trend.…”

“…The voluntary standards for packaged drinking water were published by the Bureau of Indian Standards (the National Standards Body) for the first time in 1998 and were made mandatory in 2001 (Bhaduri & Sharma, 2014). A couple of years later, a major public controversy erupted in 2003 over the issue of pesticide residue in the major bottled water brands in the country (Bhaduri & Sharma, 2014; CSE, 2003, 2004; Pandey & Sharma, 2017; Quark, 2018). This pesticide controversy in bottled water has shaken the regulatory decision-making process for setting bottled water quality standards (Bhaduri & Sharma, 2014; Pandey & Sharma, 2017; Quark, 2018).…”

“…A couple of years later, a major public controversy erupted in 2003 over the issue of pesticide residue in the major bottled water brands in the country (Bhaduri & Sharma, 2014; CSE, 2003, 2004; Pandey & Sharma, 2017; Quark, 2018). This pesticide controversy in bottled water has shaken the regulatory decision-making process for setting bottled water quality standards (Bhaduri & Sharma, 2014; Pandey & Sharma, 2017; Quark, 2018). It led to the establishment of the fourth Joint Parliamentary Committee (CSE, 2003) in the history of India and the first on water; it eventually contributed to changes in the regulation-making process for bottled water (BIS, 2003; JPC, 2004).…”

“Our Blood Itself Is Disabled!”: Haemoglobinopathy, Certificate Anxiety, and Contested Constitutionalism in Disability Legislation in India

“…These certificate anxieties are therefore generated as a result of the 'frictions' between a universalising, standardised process of disability certification for implementing affirmative action and the pragmatic challenges for blood disorder sufferers of proving 'benchmark disability' to access these affirmative actions. As is demonstrated by scholarship in science and technology studies (STS) (Merz 2021;Quark 2019), processes of standardisation have an inherent tendency to erase embodiments and particularities in favour of commensurabilities. Similarly, 'benchmark disability' as a policy device for standardising disability evaluations erases the chronicity of disabilities specific to haemoglobinopathies.…”