Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Soc Stud Sci. 2017 Feb;47(1):7-32. doi: 10.1177/0306312716667855. Epub 2016 Oct 6.
While there is ample scholarly work on regulatory science within the state, or single-sited global institutions, there is less on its operation within complex modes of global governance that are decentered, overlapping, multi-sectorial and multi-leveled. Using a co-productionist framework, this study identifies 'epistemic jurisdiction' - the power to produce or warrant technical knowledge for a given political community, topical arena or geographical territory - as a central problem for regulatory science in complex governance. We explore these dynamics in the arena of global sustainability standards for biofuels. We select three institutional fora as sites of inquiry: the European Union's Renewable Energy Directive, the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials, and the International Organization for Standardization. These cases allow us to analyze how the co-production of sustainability science responds to problems of epistemic jurisdiction in the global regulatory order. First, different problems of epistemic jurisdiction beset different standard-setting bodies, and these problems shape both the content of regulatory science and the procedures designed to make it authoritative. Second, in order to produce global regulatory science, technical bodies must manage an array of conflicting imperatives - including scientific virtue, due process and the need to recruit adoptees to perpetuate the standard. At different levels of governance, standard drafters struggle to balance loyalties to country, to company or constituency and to the larger project of internationalization. Confronted with these sometimes conflicting pressures, actors across the standards system quite self-consciously maneuver to build or retain authority for their forum through a combination of scientific adjustment and political negotiation. Third, the evidentiary demands of regulatory science in global administrative spaces are deeply affected by 1) a market for standards, in which firms and states can choose the cheapest sustainability certification, and 2) the international trade regime, in which the long shadow of WTO law exerts a powerful disciplining function.
虽然在国家或单一地点的全球机构内有大量关于监管科学的学术研究,但关于其在去中心化、重叠、多部门和多层次的复杂全球治理模式中的运作情况的研究则较少。本研究使用共同生产主义框架,将“知识管辖权”——为特定政治共同体、主题领域或地理区域生产或保证技术知识的权力——确定为复杂治理中监管科学的核心问题。我们在生物燃料全球可持续性标准领域探讨了这些动态。我们选择了三个机构论坛作为探究地点:欧盟可再生能源指令、可持续生物材料圆桌会议和国际标准化组织。这些案例使我们能够分析可持续性科学的共同生产如何应对全球监管秩序中知识管辖权的问题。首先,不同的标准制定机构都存在知识管辖权的问题,这些问题塑造了监管科学的内容和旨在使其具有权威性的程序。其次,为了产生全球监管科学,技术机构必须管理一系列相互冲突的要求——包括科学美德、正当程序以及招募采用者以延续标准的需要。在不同的治理层面上,标准起草者都在努力平衡对国家、公司或选区的忠诚以及国际化的更大目标。面对这些有时相互冲突的压力,标准系统中的行为者通过科学调整和政治谈判相结合,自觉地操纵其论坛以建立或保留其权威。第三,全球行政空间中监管科学的证据要求受到以下因素的深刻影响:1)标准市场,在这个市场中,企业和国家可以选择最便宜的可持续性认证;2)国际贸易体制,世界贸易组织法的长期影响发挥了强大的约束作用。