Expert opinion and public support of genetically modified food policy: Does deficit model work in China?
Li Shao
School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Meng U. Ieong
Department of Government and Public Administration, University of Macau, Macau, China
Correspondence
Meng U. Ieong, Department of Government and Public Administration, University of Macau, Room 4049, Humanities and Social Sciences Building (E21), Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau, China.
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorLi Shao
School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Meng U. Ieong
Department of Government and Public Administration, University of Macau, Macau, China
Correspondence
Meng U. Ieong, Department of Government and Public Administration, University of Macau, Room 4049, Humanities and Social Sciences Building (E21), Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau, China.
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
enTo what extent do expert opinions affect public opinion in policy making? While most existing studies were conducted in democracies, experts' influence under authoritarian settings is still understudied. This paper examines how expert opinion and vocational affiliation influence public attitudes toward genetically modified (GM) food in China. Through a survey experiment with over 1600 respondents, we find that experts' endorsement can increase policy support for GM food but that their opposition exerts no influence. Different vocational affiliations do not generate significantly different effects, although endorsement from foreign experts has larger effects than endorsement from domestic counterparts, who have closer connections with the Chinese government. We finally discuss the policy implications of expert involvement in policy making and promoting GM food in China based on the above findings.
摘要
zh专家意见在多大程度上影响决策中的舆论?虽然大多数现有研究是在民主国家进行的，但威权主义环境下的专家影响力仍然有待研究。本文分析了专家意见和职业背景如何影响中国公众对转基因(GM)食品的态度。通过对1600多名受访者的一项调查实验发现，专家背书能增加对转基因食品的政策支持，但专家的反对则没有影响力。尽管外国专家的背书比与中国政府关系更密切的国内同行的背书效果更大，但不同职业背景产生的效果并没有显著差异。根据上述研究结果，我们最后探讨了专家参与中国政策和推广转基因食品的政策启示。
Resumen
es¿En qué medida las opiniones de los expertos afectan la opinión pública en la formulación de políticas? Si bien la mayoría de los estudios existentes se realizaron en democracias, la influencia de los expertos en entornos autoritarios aún no se ha estudiado lo suficiente. Este artículo examina cómo la opinión de los expertos y la afiliación vocacional influyen en las actitudes del público hacia los alimentos genéticamente modificados (GM) en China. A través de un experimento de encuesta con más de 1.600 encuestados, encontramos que el respaldo de los expertos puede aumentar el apoyo político a los alimentos genéticamente modificados, pero que su oposición no ejerce ninguna influencia. Las diferentes afiliaciones vocacionales no generan efectos significativamente diferentes, aunque el respaldo de expertos extranjeros tiene efectos mayores que el respaldo de sus homólogos nacionales, que tienen conexiones más estrechas con el gobierno chino. Finalmente discutimos las implicaciones políticas de la participación de expertos en la formulación de políticas y la promoción de alimentos transgénicos en China con base en los hallazgos anteriores.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| ropr12603-sup-0001-Appendix.docxWord 2007 document , 62.6 KB |
Appendix S1.. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- Attwell, K., Leask, J., Meyer, S. B., Rokkas, P., & Ward, P. (2017). Vaccine rejecting parents' engagement with expert systems that inform vaccination programs. Symposium: Public Trust in Expert Knowledge, 14, 65–76.
- Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). Ideas and policy change. Governance, 26(2), 239–258.
- Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. MIT Press.
- Chen, D., Cheng, C.-Y., & Urpelainen, J. (2016). Support for renewable energy in China: A survey experiment with internet users. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 3750–3758.
- Cofnas, N., Carl, N., & Menie, M. A. W. O. (2018). Does activism in social science explain conservatives' distrust of scientists? The American Sociologist, 49, 135–148.
10.1007/s12108-017-9362-0 Google Scholar
- Cook, G., Robbins, P. T., & Pieri, E. (2006). “Words of mass destruction”: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science, 15(1), 5–29.
- Costa-Font, J., & Mossialos, E. (2005). Is dread of genetically modified food associated with the consumers' demand for information. Applied Economics Letters, 12, 859–863.
- Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., & Traill, W. B. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy, 33, 99–111.
- Critchley, C. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309–327.
- Cui, K., & Shoemaker, S. P. (2018). Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A nationwide Chinese consumer study. npj Science of Food, 2(10), 1–8.
- Davison, J., & Ammann, K. (2017). New GMO regulations for old: Determining a new future for EU crop biotechnology. GM Crops & Food, 8(1), 13–34.
- Durant, J. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 313–319.
10.3152/147154399781782329 Google Scholar
- Gewirtz, J. (2017). Unlikely partners: Chinese reformers, Western economists, and the making of global China. Harvard University Press.
10.4159/9780674973459 Google Scholar
- Grundmann, R. (2017). The problem of expertise in knowledge societies. Minerva, 55, 25–48.
- Guehlstorf, N. P., & Hallstrom, L. K. (2005). The role of culture in risk regulations: A comparative case study of genetically modified corn in the United States of America and European Union. Environmental Science & Policy, 8, 327–342.
- He, G., Mol, A. P. J., Zhang, L., & Lu, Y. (2013). Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, 1–11.
- Huang, H., Wang, F., & Shao, L. (2018). How propaganda moderates the influence of opinion leaders. International Journal of Communication, 12, 2599–2621.
- Heikkila, T., Weible, C. M., & Gerlak, A. K. (2020). When does science persuade (or not persuade) in high-conflict policy contexts? Public Administration, 98(3), 535–550.
- House, L., Lusk, J., Jaeger, S., Traill, W. B., Moore, M., Valli, C., Morrow, B., & Yee, W. M. S. (2004). Objective and subjective knowledge: Impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and the European Union. AgBioforum, 7(3), 113–123.
- Huang, H. (2015). A war of (mis)information: The political effects of rumors and rumor rebuttals in an authoritarian country. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 283–311.
- Jin, Y., Schaub, S., Tosun, J., & Wesseler, J. (2022). Does China have a public debate on genetically modified organisms? A discourse network analysis of public debate on Weibo. Public Understanding of Science, 31(6), 1–19.
- Johnston, C. D., & Ballard, A. O. (2016). Economists and public opinion: Expert consensus and economic policy judgments. The Journal of Politics, 78(2), 443–456.
- Jones, C. W. (2019). Adviser to the king: Experts, rationalization, and legitimacy. World Politics, 71(1), 1–43.
- Kahan, D. M. (2016). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, Part 1: What politically motivated reasoning is and how to measure it. In R. A. Scott & Kosslyn S. M. (Eds), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0417
10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0417 Google Scholar
- Lachapelle, E., Montpetit, E., & Gauvin, J.-P. (2014). Public perceptions of expert credibility on policy issues: The role of expert framing and political worldviews. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 674–697.
- Leach, W. D., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). To trust an Adversary: Integrating rational and psychological models of collaborative policymaking. The American Political Science Review, 99(4), 491–503.
- Leggie, J. S., Jr., & Durant, R. F. (2010). Public opinion, risk assessment, and biotechnology: Lessons from attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. Review of Policy Research, 27(1), 59–76.
- Lu, L., & Chen, H. (2016). Chinese public's risk perceptions of genetically modified food: From the 1990s to 2015. Science, Technology and Society, 21(1), 110–128.
- Melo, D. F., & Stockemer, D. (2014). Age and political participation in Germany, France and the UK: A comparative analysis. Comparative European Politics, 12(1), 33–53.
- Moerbeek, H., & Casimir, G. (2005). Gender differences in consumers' acceptance of genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(4), 308–318.
10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00441.x Google Scholar
- Montpetit, É. (2008). Policy design for legitimacy: Expert knowledge, citizens, time and inclusion in the United Kingdom's biotechnology sector. Public Administration, 86(1), 259–277.
- Nicholson, S. P. (2011). Dominating cues and the limits of elite influence. The Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1165–1177.
- Onyango, B. (2004). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods: The role of product benefits and perceived risks. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 35(1), 154–161.
- Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. University of Cambridge.
10.1017/CBO9780511818110 Google Scholar
- Punt, M. J., & Wesseler, J. (2016). Legal but costly: An analysis of the EU GM regulation in the light of the WTO trade dispute between the EU and the USA. The World Economy, 39(1), 158–169.
- Ruan, Y., Yang, J., & Jin, J. (2019). One issue, different stories: The construction of GMO issues on Chinese, American and British mainstream media portals. Cultures of Science, 2(4), 255–275.
10.1177/209660831900200403 Google Scholar
- Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy, 7(5), 385–403.
- Shao, L., & Ieong, M. U. (2022). Public attitudes towards experts in China. Journal of Asian Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2022.2123699
- Shao, L., & Liu, D. (2019). The road to cynicism: The political consequences of online satire exposure in China. Political Studies, 67(2), 517–536.
- Shen, Y., Ieong, M. U., & Zhu, Z. (2022). The function of expert involvement in China's local policy making. Politics & Policy, 50(1), 59–76.
- Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perception of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195–203.
- Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353–362.
- Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.
- Teets, J. (2018). The power of policy networks in authoritarian regimes: Changing environmental policy in China. Governance, 31, 125–141.
- Tosun, J., & Schaub, S. (2017). Mobilization in the European public sphere: The struggle over genetically modified organisms. Review of Policy Research, 34(3), 310–330.
- Traill, W. B., Jaeger, S. R., Yee, W. M. S., Valli, C., House, L. O., Lusk, J. L., Moore, M., & Morrow, J. L. (2004). Categories of GM risk-benefit perceptions and their antecedents. AgBioforum, 7(4), 176–186.
- Truex, R. (2014). Consultative authoritarianism and its limits. Comparative Political Studies, 50(3), 329–361.
- Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1987). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. University of Chicago Press.
- Vilella-Vila, M., Costa-Font, J., & Mossialos, E. (2005). Consumer involvement and acceptance of biotechnology in the European Union: A specific focus on Spain and the UK. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(2), 108–118.
10.1111/j.1470-6431.2004.00425.x Google Scholar
- Vraga, E., Myers, T., Kotcher, J., Beall, L., & Maibach, E. (2018). Scientific risk communication about controversial issues influences public perceptions of scientists' political orientations and credibility. Royal Society Open Science, 5(2), 1–15.
- Wang, Z. (2006). Explaining regime strength in China. China: An International Journal, 4, 217–237.
10.1353/chn.2006.0018 Google Scholar
- Wan, C., Shen, G. Q., & Choi, S. (2017). A review on political factors influencing public support for urban environmental policy. Environmental Science and Policy, 75, 70–80.
- Wang, Q. (2015). China's scientists must engage the public on GM. Nature, 519(7541), 7.
- Weible, C. M., Pattison, A., & Sabatier, P. A. (2010). Harnessing expert-based information for learning and the sustainable management of complex socio-ecological systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 13(6), 522–534.
- Wenzelburger, G., & Konig, P. D. (2017). Different by design? Analyzing how governments justify GMO liberalization through the lens of strategic communication. Review of Policy Research, 34(3), 331–356.
- Wohlers, A. E. (2010). Regulating genetically modified food: Policy trajectories, political culture, and risk perceptions in the U.S., Canada, and EU. Politics and the Life Sciences, 29(2), 17–39.
- Wu, J. Y. (2022). Categorical confusion: Ideological labels. Political Research Quarterly, 76(2), 1–16.
- Yang, Q., & Tang, W. (2010). Exploring the sources of institutional trust in China: Culture, mobilization, or performance. Asian Politics & Policy, 2(3), 415–436.
10.1111/j.1943-0787.2010.01201.x Google Scholar
- Zhengxu, W. (2005). Before the emergence of critical citizens: Economic development and political trust. International Review of Sociology, 15(1), 155–171.
10.1080/03906700500038876 Google Scholar
- Zhu, X. (2009). The influence of think tanks in the Chinese policy process. Asian Survey, 49(2), 333–357.
- Zhu, X. (2011). Government advisors or public advocates? Roles of think tanks in China from the perspective of regional variations. The China Quarterly, 207, 668–686.
- Zhu, X. (2013). Policy change and expert involvement in China. Public Administration, 91(2), 281–302.
- Zhu, X., & Xue, L. (2007). Think tanks in transitional China. Public Administration and Development, 27, 452–464.
