Institutional vulnerability to social constructions: Federalism, target populations, and policy designs for assisted reproductive technology in six democracies

Comparative Political Studies

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 119-142

  Montpetit, Éric ^a   Rothmayr, Christine ^b   Varone, Frédéric ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Assisted reproductive technology; Social constructions; Target populations

Indexed keywords

EID: 14544293549     PISSN: 00104140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0010414004271080     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1961). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947-952.
2. Bleich, E. (2002). Integrating ideas into policy-making analysis: Frames and race policies in Britain and France. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 1054-1076.
3. Bleiklie, I., Goggin, M., & Rothmayr, C. (Eds.). (2004). Governing assisted reproductive technology: A cross country comparison, London: Routledge.
4. Braun, D. (Ed.). (2000). Public policy and federalism. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
5. Braun, D. (2003). Dezentraler und unitarischer Föderalismus: Die Schweiz und Deutschland im Vergleich. Swiss Political Science Review, 9, 57-89.
6. Chandler, W. M. (1987). Federalism and political parties. In H. Bakvis & W. M. Chandler (Eds.), Federalism and the role of the state (pp. 149-170). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
7. Coburn, D. (1988). Canadian medicine: Dominance or proletarianization? Milbank Quarterly, 66, 92-116.
8. Coleman, W. D., & Montpetit, É. (2000). Multitiered systems and the organization of business interests. In J. Greenwood & H. Jacek (Eds.), Organized business and the new global order (pp. 160-176). London: Macmillan.
9. Crettaz de Roten, F., & Leresche, J.-P. (2001). Les Suisses face à la science et à la technique. Ecublens, Switzerland: Cahiers No. 3 de l'Observatoire EPFL Science, Politique et Société.
10. European Commission. (2001). Eurobarometer 55.2: Europeans, science and technology. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
11. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., & Stares, S. (2003). Europeans and biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0. Brussels, Belgium: Life Science in European Society.
12. Government of Canada. (1996). New reproductive technologies: Setting boundaries, enhancing health. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.
13. Gunning, J., & English, V. (1993). Human in vitro fertilization: A case study in the regulation of medical innovation. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.
14. Harrison, K. (1996). Passing the buck: Federalism and Canadian environmental policy. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
15. Hassenteufel, P. (1997). Les médecins face à l'État: Une comparaison européenne. Paris: Les Presses de Sciences.
16. Héritier, A. (1999). Policy-making and diversity in Europe: Escape from deadlock. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Jupille, J., Caporaso, J. A., & Checkel, J. T. (2003). Integrating institutions: Rationalism, constructivism, and the study of the European Union. Comparative Political Studies, 36,7-41.
18. Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19. Leather, S. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2003, from http://www.hfea.gov.uk/aboutHFEA/default.ht m
20. Lieberman, R. C. (1995). Social construction (continued). American Political Science Review, 89, 437-441.
21. Lindblom, C. E. (1977). Politics and markets: The world's political economic systems. New York: Basic Books.
22. Mettler, S. (2002). Bringing the state back in to civic engagement: Policy feedback effects of the G.I. Bill for World War II veterans. American Political Science Review, 98, 351-365.
23. Montpetit, É. (2002). Policy networks, federal arrangements, and the development of environmental regulations: A comparison of the Canadian and American agricultural sectors. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 15, 1-20.
24. Montpetit, É. (2004). Policy networks, federalism and managerial ideas: How ART non-decision in Canada safeguards the autonomy of the medical profession. In I. Bleiklie, M. Goggin, & C. Rothmayr (Eds.), Comparative biomédical policy: Governing assisted reproductive technology (pp. 64-81). London: Routledge.
25. Pierson, P. (1995). Fragmented welfare states: Federal institutions and the development of social policy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 8, 449-478.
26. Presse Canadienne & Léger Marketing. (2002). La perception des Canadiens à l'égard de certaines professions. Montreal, Canada: Presse Canadienne.
27. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb R. W. (1993). Problem définition, agenda access, and policy choice. Policy Studies Journal, 21, 56-71.
28. Rothmayr, C., & Serdült, U. (2004). Switzerland: Policy design and direct democracy. In I. Bleiklie, M. Goggin, & C. Rothmayr (Eds.), Comparative biomedical policy: Governing assisted reproductive technology (pp. 191-208). London: Routledge.
29. Rothmayr, C., Varone, F., & Montpetit, É. (2003). Does federalism matter for biopolicies? Switzerland in comparative perspective. Swiss Political Science Review, 9, 109-136.
30. Salter, B. (2001). Who rules? The new politics of medical regulation. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 871-883.
31. Scharpf, F. W. (1988). The joint decision trap: Lessons from German federalism and European integration. Public Administration, 66, 239-278.
32. Scharpf, F. W. (1994). Games real actors could play: Positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 27-53.
33. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, CO: Westview.
34. Scharpf, F. W. (2000). Institutions in comparative policy research. Comparative Political Studies, 33, 762-790.
35. Schiffino, N., & Varone, F. (2004). ART policy in Belgium: A bioethical paradise? In I. Bleiklie, M. Goggin, & C. Rothmayr (Eds.), Comparative biomedical policy: Governing assisted reproductive technology (pp. 21-41). London: Routledge.
36. Schmidt, V. A. (2002). Does discourse matter in the politics of welfare state adjustment? Comparative Political Studies, 35, 168-193.
37. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social constructions and target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334-347.
38. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1995). Response. American Political Science Review, 89, 441-446.
39. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
40. Skogstad, G. (2003). Legitimacy and/or policy effectiveness? Network governance and GMO regulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 10, 321-338.
41. Soss, J. (1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review, 93, 363-380.
42. Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreth, F. (Eds.). (1992). Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43. Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton.
44. Testard, J. (2003, April). Les dessous du clonage. Le Monde Diplomatique, pp. 2-3.
45. Topf, R. (1993). Science, public policy and the authoritativeness of the governmental process. In A. Barker & B. G. Peters (Eds.), The politics of expert advice: Creating, using and manipulating scientific knowledge for public policy (pp. 103-117). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
46. Tsebelis, G. (2003). Federalism and veto players. In U. Wagschal & H. Rentsch (Eds.), Der Preis des Föderalismus (pp. 295-318). Zurich, Switzerland: Orell Füssli.