Governing biosecurity in a neoliberal world: comparative perspectives from Australia and the United Kingdom

Damian Maye, Jacqui Dibden, Vaughan Higgins, Clive Potter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

International trade poses a serious and growing threat to biosecurity through the introduction of invasive pests and disease: these have adverse impacts on plant and animal health and public goods such as biodiversity, as well as food production capacity. While international governmental bodies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) recognise such threats, and permit governments to protect human, animal, and plant life or health, such measures must not be applied in a way that is restrictive to trade. This raises a fundamental (but little-examined) tension between effective biosecurity governance and the neoliberal priorities of international trade. In this paper we examine how such tensions play out in the different political and geographical contexts of Australia and the United Kingdom. A comparative approach enables close scrutiny of how trade liberalisation and biosecurity are coconstituted as compatible objectives as well as the tensions and contradictions involved in making these domains a single governable problem. The comparative analysis draws attention to the policy challenges facing Australia and the UK in governing national biosecurity in a neoliberal world.These challenges reveal a complex geopolitics in the ways in which biosecurity is practised, institutionalised, and debated in each country, with implications for which pests and diseases are defined as threats and, therefore, which commodities are permitted to move across national borders. Despite efforts by the WTO to govern biosecurity as a technical matter of risk assessment and management, and to harmonise national practices, we contend that actual biosecurity practices continue to diverge between states depending on perceptions of risk and hazard, both to agricultural production and to rural environments as a whole, as well as unresolved tensions between internationalised neoliberalism and domestic concerns.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)150-168
Number of pages19
JournalEnvironment and Planning A
Volume44
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

threat
world trade
WTO
World Trade Organization
international trade
animal
Disease
national border
geopolitics
agricultural production
health
neoliberalism
risk management
risk assessment
biodiversity
trade liberalization
liberalization
commodity
food production
governance

Cite this

Maye, Damian ; Dibden, Jacqui ; Higgins, Vaughan ; Potter, Clive. / Governing biosecurity in a neoliberal world : comparative perspectives from Australia and the United Kingdom. In: Environment and Planning A. 2012 ; Vol. 44, No. 1. pp. 150-168.
@article{d5c972023b774505a047a8873da4bf19,
title = "Governing biosecurity in a neoliberal world: comparative perspectives from Australia and the United Kingdom",
abstract = "International trade poses a serious and growing threat to biosecurity through the introduction of invasive pests and disease: these have adverse impacts on plant and animal health and public goods such as biodiversity, as well as food production capacity. While international governmental bodies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) recognise such threats, and permit governments to protect human, animal, and plant life or health, such measures must not be applied in a way that is restrictive to trade. This raises a fundamental (but little-examined) tension between effective biosecurity governance and the neoliberal priorities of international trade. In this paper we examine how such tensions play out in the different political and geographical contexts of Australia and the United Kingdom. A comparative approach enables close scrutiny of how trade liberalisation and biosecurity are coconstituted as compatible objectives as well as the tensions and contradictions involved in making these domains a single governable problem. The comparative analysis draws attention to the policy challenges facing Australia and the UK in governing national biosecurity in a neoliberal world.These challenges reveal a complex geopolitics in the ways in which biosecurity is practised, institutionalised, and debated in each country, with implications for which pests and diseases are defined as threats and, therefore, which commodities are permitted to move across national borders. Despite efforts by the WTO to govern biosecurity as a technical matter of risk assessment and management, and to harmonise national practices, we contend that actual biosecurity practices continue to diverge between states depending on perceptions of risk and hazard, both to agricultural production and to rural environments as a whole, as well as unresolved tensions between internationalised neoliberalism and domestic concerns.",
author = "Damian Maye and Jacqui Dibden and Vaughan Higgins and Clive Potter",
note = "Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: Journal title (773t) = Environment and Planning A: international journal of urban and regional research. ISSNs: 0308-518X;",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1068/a4426",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "150--168",
journal = "Environment and Planning A",
issn = "0308-518X",
publisher = "Pion Ltd",
number = "1",

}

Governing biosecurity in a neoliberal world : comparative perspectives from Australia and the United Kingdom. / Maye, Damian; Dibden, Jacqui; Higgins, Vaughan; Potter, Clive.

In: Environment and Planning A, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2012, p. 150-168.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Governing biosecurity in a neoliberal world

T2 - comparative perspectives from Australia and the United Kingdom

AU - Maye, Damian

AU - Dibden, Jacqui

AU - Higgins, Vaughan

AU - Potter, Clive

N1 - Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: Journal title (773t) = Environment and Planning A: international journal of urban and regional research. ISSNs: 0308-518X;

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - International trade poses a serious and growing threat to biosecurity through the introduction of invasive pests and disease: these have adverse impacts on plant and animal health and public goods such as biodiversity, as well as food production capacity. While international governmental bodies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) recognise such threats, and permit governments to protect human, animal, and plant life or health, such measures must not be applied in a way that is restrictive to trade. This raises a fundamental (but little-examined) tension between effective biosecurity governance and the neoliberal priorities of international trade. In this paper we examine how such tensions play out in the different political and geographical contexts of Australia and the United Kingdom. A comparative approach enables close scrutiny of how trade liberalisation and biosecurity are coconstituted as compatible objectives as well as the tensions and contradictions involved in making these domains a single governable problem. The comparative analysis draws attention to the policy challenges facing Australia and the UK in governing national biosecurity in a neoliberal world.These challenges reveal a complex geopolitics in the ways in which biosecurity is practised, institutionalised, and debated in each country, with implications for which pests and diseases are defined as threats and, therefore, which commodities are permitted to move across national borders. Despite efforts by the WTO to govern biosecurity as a technical matter of risk assessment and management, and to harmonise national practices, we contend that actual biosecurity practices continue to diverge between states depending on perceptions of risk and hazard, both to agricultural production and to rural environments as a whole, as well as unresolved tensions between internationalised neoliberalism and domestic concerns.

AB - International trade poses a serious and growing threat to biosecurity through the introduction of invasive pests and disease: these have adverse impacts on plant and animal health and public goods such as biodiversity, as well as food production capacity. While international governmental bodies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) recognise such threats, and permit governments to protect human, animal, and plant life or health, such measures must not be applied in a way that is restrictive to trade. This raises a fundamental (but little-examined) tension between effective biosecurity governance and the neoliberal priorities of international trade. In this paper we examine how such tensions play out in the different political and geographical contexts of Australia and the United Kingdom. A comparative approach enables close scrutiny of how trade liberalisation and biosecurity are coconstituted as compatible objectives as well as the tensions and contradictions involved in making these domains a single governable problem. The comparative analysis draws attention to the policy challenges facing Australia and the UK in governing national biosecurity in a neoliberal world.These challenges reveal a complex geopolitics in the ways in which biosecurity is practised, institutionalised, and debated in each country, with implications for which pests and diseases are defined as threats and, therefore, which commodities are permitted to move across national borders. Despite efforts by the WTO to govern biosecurity as a technical matter of risk assessment and management, and to harmonise national practices, we contend that actual biosecurity practices continue to diverge between states depending on perceptions of risk and hazard, both to agricultural production and to rural environments as a whole, as well as unresolved tensions between internationalised neoliberalism and domestic concerns.

U2 - 10.1068/a4426

DO - 10.1068/a4426

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 150

EP - 168

JO - Environment and Planning A

JF - Environment and Planning A

SN - 0308-518X

IS - 1

ER -