Debating food security policy in two different ideational settings: a comparison of Australia and Norway
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Debating food security policy in two different ideational settings : a comparison of Australia and Norway. / Farsund, Arild Aurvåg; Daugbjerg, Carsten.
In: Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2017, p. 347–366.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Debating food security policy in two different ideational settings
T2 - a comparison of Australia and Norway
AU - Farsund, Arild Aurvåg
AU - Daugbjerg, Carsten
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Food security has emerged as a relatively new policy issue in agricultural policy making in developed countries. This policy problem is addressed within an institutional landscape in which agricultural ideas and institutions are well-established. In this article, food security policy making in Australia and Norway is compared. In Australia, agricultural normalism (agricultural markets and production are considered to be similar to those of other economic sectors) has been dominant since the mid-1980s, while Norwegian agricultural policy making has been dominated by agricultural exceptionalism (agriculture is considered a unique economic sector with special market and production conditions). It is demonstrated in the article how these two opposing institutionalised ideational foundations have influenced the nature of the food security debate in the two countries. In Australia, the debate emphasises the positive role of the market and trade in providing global food security. In Norway, the debate highlights the need to regulate market forces and restrict trade in order to allow countries to develop their own agricultural sectors.
AB - Food security has emerged as a relatively new policy issue in agricultural policy making in developed countries. This policy problem is addressed within an institutional landscape in which agricultural ideas and institutions are well-established. In this article, food security policy making in Australia and Norway is compared. In Australia, agricultural normalism (agricultural markets and production are considered to be similar to those of other economic sectors) has been dominant since the mid-1980s, while Norwegian agricultural policy making has been dominated by agricultural exceptionalism (agriculture is considered a unique economic sector with special market and production conditions). It is demonstrated in the article how these two opposing institutionalised ideational foundations have influenced the nature of the food security debate in the two countries. In Australia, the debate emphasises the positive role of the market and trade in providing global food security. In Norway, the debate highlights the need to regulate market forces and restrict trade in order to allow countries to develop their own agricultural sectors.
U2 - 10.1111/1467-9477.12091
DO - 10.1111/1467-9477.12091
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85013455428
VL - 40
SP - 347
EP - 366
JO - Scandinavian Political Studies
JF - Scandinavian Political Studies
SN - 0080-6757
IS - 4
ER -
ID: 173981219