Search

Simple Summary: Existing cross-cultural research on animal welfare often overlooks the way that policy and law are not the exclusive domain of central government. This can result in an over-simplification or misrepresentation of the true situation. The political culture and institutional arrangements for governing the modern state are more complex than a "one-size-fits-all" approach. It is argued that cross-cultural research needs to give greater attention to differences within as well as between unitary states. Specifically, it needs to examine developments in constituent nations and territories. Here we illustrate this by drawing on new research in the United Kingdom, and examine how 'devolution'—or decentralized government for Wales and Scotland—is providing contrasting opportunities for NGOs, campaigners, and the public to lobby to improve animal welfare policy based on local practices, beliefs, and demands (collectively known as the "political culture"). Our findings show how this is important because it results in contrasting animal welfare policies and laws in the constituent nations of the UK. It is argued that extant cross-cultural research on animal welfare often overlooks or gives insufficient attention to new governance theory, civil society, politics, and the realities of devolved or (quasi-)federal, multi-level governance in the modern state. This paper synthesizes relevant social theory and draws on new empirical findings of civil society accounts of campaigning on animal welfare policies and law in the United Kingdom. It is presented as a corrective to arguably reductive, earlier unitary state-based analyses. Our core, evidence-based argument is that cognizance of civil society activism and the contrasting institutional governance structures and political cultures of constituent nations in unitary states—such as the UK—are providing opportunities for the territorialization of legally grounded animal welfare regimes, and culturally distinctive practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]