Search

As part of an increasing scientisation of political processes, epistemic communities have been identified as a unique category of social actors, who exclusively rely on their knowledge resources to shape the preferences of decision-makers. Whereas most authors expect that an expert-driven policy process facilitates the implementation of technically complex policies, critical scholars hint to an evolving technocracy, whose scientific dogmatism may end up in policies that aggravate social problems. In this paper, these countervailing assumptions are empirically assessed for the epistemic community on biodiversity and its role in Brazil and India. At least in this case, it seems that the impact experts' influence depends on the configuration of the policy arena. If experts are institutionally compelled to debate their positions with potential critics, the members of an epistemic community seem to engage in a rather deliberative discourse that widens the policy space for all stakeholders involved. Under the conditions of an elitist closure, however, policy experts seem to adapt to the preferences of the most powerful actors but refrain from any critical self-reflection that might seriously challenge their own convictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Particularly in the North–South confrontation at the Cancun Ministerial Conference in 2003, developing countries seemed to be presenting a unified stance of resistance against the developed world. These developments were greeted with considerable surprise in the scholarly as well as policy communities, not least because many theorists of International Relations had predicted increasing homogenisation and policy convergence by developing countries around liberal solidarist norms. In this paper, we analyse the apparent revitalisation of the Third World, and evaluate the policies of developing countries at and around Cancun to assess the claims that this heralds a more activist and less accommodating period in North/South relations. We buttress this general analysis by probing further into the policies of two of the major players, namely Brazil and India. We argue that recent policy changes can be explained by learning and adaptation by developing countries within the specific institution of the World Trade Organisation. We examine this adaptation along four planes: coalitions, insider activism, negotiation strategies, and transnational coalitions. Domestic politics in both our country cases play, at best, a supportive role. We also investigate the extent to which these shifts in trade politics might be seen as broader shifts in foreign policy.*This work forms part of a project on Emerging Powers in International Regimes, funded by the Nuffield Foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]