Assiste-t-on (réellement) à une polarisation du débat sur les OGM ? Une perspective internationale sur la période 2000-2010

Damien Rousselière and Samira Rousselière

Revue d'économie politique, 2013, vol. 123, issue 4, 593-622

Abstract: How can we explain that the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in food and horticulture is an issue in France and in Europe, where they are hardly used, and yet seems to be taken for granted in the US, where their use is widespread? Many observers see this as a sign that American consumers have accepted transgenic foods, due to a different attitude to risks, food and nature. This explanation has been discussed since with a focus on the institutional dynamics of the public debate. Our paper can be considered as an extension of these previous researches, although we criticize the ?bias assimilation and polarization hypothesis? about a public opinion split on this issue. Our data come from the 2000-2010 ISSP (International Social Survey Program) on environment. The heterogeneous choice (aka location-scale) model helps us to separate the effects of time and country. For some countries, we show a gentle increase of risk perception of GM crops (measured on a Likert scale) but a small decrease of the variance, suggesting a fall in the extremist view.

Date: 2013
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.cairn.info/load_pdf.php?ID_ARTICLE=REDP_234_0593 (application/pdf)
http://www.cairn.info/revue-d-economie-politique-2013-4-page-593.htm (text/html)
free

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cai:repdal:redp_234_0593

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Revue d'économie politique from Dalloz
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Jean-Baptiste de Vathaire ().