Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Biopesticides, regulatory innovation and the regulatory state

By Justin Greaves


This article analyses regulatory innovation. It considers, in particular, how a regulatory environmental agency has been encouraged to innovate in the area of biopesticides. The literature on regulatory innovation is reviewed, the discussion situated within Moran's theory of the regulatory state. It considers to what extent innovation has occurred within the agency, looking at its proactive stance, and how unusually for a regulatory body it has negotiated new policy spaces in which to operate. The article looks at the contextual drivers and also the exogenous and endogenous pressures behind the innovation. It shows how the executive has intervened in order to promote more use of biopesticides and how pressure is also being exerted within the regulatory authority. By using the existing literature and empirical evidence a framework is outlined for explaining the likelihood of regulatory innovation occurring in regulatory agencies

Topics: S1, KD
Publisher: Sage Publications Ltd.
Year: 2009
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2005). Advisory Committee on Pesticides doi
  2. Advisory Committee on Pesticides (2004), Final Report of the sub-group of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides on: Alternatives to conventional pest control techniques in the UK: A scoping study of the potential for their wider use.
  3. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, doi
  4. (1997). Biopesticides at the Crossroads: IPM Products or Chemical Clones?’ In
  5. (2000). Biopesticides; a review of their action, applications and efficacy’, doi
  6. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (London:Sage). ENDNOTES I PSD was formerly an agency of Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). Defra Ministers remain responsible for pesticides policy.
  7. (2005). Conclusions. In doi
  8. (2007). correspondence with Lisa Moakes,
  9. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research’, doi
  10. (2000). From command state to regulatory state’, doi
  11. (2006). II There are some exceptions. See Flyvjerg
  12. (2006). III This approach to defining biopesticides is taken from ‘Biopesticides: The Way Ahead’, a briefing article for a Conference held at the Royal Agricultural Society of England,
  13. (2000). Insect Pest Management, doi
  14. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy, doi
  15. (2004). Natural Enemies: An Introduction to Biological Control, (Cambridge: doi
  16. (2003). New support for biopesticides in the UK,
  17. (2007). Perspectives for Safer Plant Protection, presented at the REBECA Conference: Balanced Regulation for Biological Plant Protection Products,
  18. (2004). Pesticides Safety Directorate Annual Report and Accounts 2003/04, (London: the Stationary Office) (available at 003-4.pdf Pesticides Safety Directorate,
  19. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain’, doi
  20. (1982). Policy stability and policy change: industrial training 1964/82’, doi
  21. (2005). Reducing Administrative Burdens: Effective Inspection and Enforcement,
  22. (2003). Regulatory Impact Unit:
  23. (2002). Review article: understanding the regulatory state’, doi
  24. (2005). Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, doi
  25. (1998). Similar Problems, Different Policies: Policy Networks and Environmental Policy. doi
  26. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure, doi
  27. (2003). The British Regulatory State: High Modernism and HyperInnovation, doi
  28. (2005). The challenges of interdisciplinary environmental research: the case of Biopesticides, an article presented at the Northeastern Political Science Association Conference,
  29. (1999). The diffusion of interactive communications and the critical mass: the adoption of telecommunications strategy by German banks’, doi
  30. (2001). The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulatory Regimes, doi
  31. (2001). The Great Food Gamble,
  32. (1984). The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life’, doi
  33. (2007). The PSD Annual Report
  34. (2000). The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risks, Solving Problems and Managing Compliance, doi
  35. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: doi
  36. Tomorrow’s World: Frameworks for Understanding Regulatory Innovation. doi
  37. (2007). Trade off effects of current regulatory practice, paper presented at the REBECA Conference: Balanced Regulation for Biological Plant Protection Products,
  38. (2006). was adopted in Dec
  39. (2005). What is Regulatory Innovation, doi
  40. (1997). World Culture in the world polity: a century of international non-governmental organization’, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.