LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: SF
Using quantitative and qualitative data, this paper contributes to debates on the uneven geographies of neoliberal animal disease regulation. Specifically, the paper analyses the impacts of neoliberal reforms to animal disease regulation in Great Britain. Focussing on the case of bovine tuberculosis (bTB), the paper analyses how changes to ‘relational distance’ in animal disease regulation have led to closer relationships between regulators (veterinarians) and regulatees (farmers) which in turn has led to a departure from standardised disease regulation to approaches that emphasise greater flexibility and judgement. The paper presents quantitative analysis of bTB testing data revealing the gradual erosion of government control of bTB regulation and significant variations in disease diagnosis between vets in the private and public sectors. Drawing on interviews with senior veterinarians in Government and veterinary organisations, the paper shows how these regulatory structures evolved and came to be accepted despite their limitations. The paper concludes by considering how relational distance contributes to an understanding of the nature of disease and its implications for the wider regulation of animal disease.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Anon., 1966. The Future of the Veterinary Profession. Veterinary Record 78 (17), 591 - 596.
    • Barry, A., 2001. Political Machines. Athlone Press, London.
    • Black, D., 1976. The Behaviour of Law. Academic Press, New York.
    • Braithwaite, J., 1985. To Punish or Persuade: Enforcement of Coal Mine Safety. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
    • Braun, B., 2007. Biopolitics and the molecularization of life. Cultural Geographies 14 (1), 6- 28.
    • Clarke, L., 1999. Mission Improbable: using fantasy documents to tame disaster. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
    • Day, P., Klein, R., 1990. Inspecting the Inspectorates Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust, York.
    • de la Rua-Domenech, R., Goodchild, A.T., Vordermeier, H.M., Hewinson, R.G., Christiansen, K.H., Clifton-Hadley, R.S., 2006. Ante mortem diagnosis of tuberculosis in cattle: A review of the tuberculin tests, [gamma]-interferon assay and other ancillary diagnostic techniques. Research in Veterinary Science 81 (2), 190-210.
    • Defra, 2007. Update on implementing the recommendations of the Comer report on the Tuberculin testing instructions, London.
    • Defra, 2013. Draft Strategy for Achieving “Officially Bovine Tuberculosis-Free” Status for England. Defra, London.
    • DG SANCO., 2004. Final report of a mission carried out in the United Kingdom from 17 to 26 November in order to evaluate the Bovine Tuberculosis eradication programme, in: Office, F.a.V. (Ed.). European Commission, Brussels.
    • Dibden, J., Higgins, V., Cocklin, C., 2011. Harmonizing the governance of farming risks: the regulation and contestation of agricultural biosecurity and biotechnology in Australia.
    • Australian Geographer 42 (2), 105-122.
    • Downe, J., Martin, S., 2007. Inspecting for improvement? Emerging patterns of public service regulation in the UK. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 25 (3), 410-422.
    • Efficiency Unit, 1988. Improving Management in Government: the Next Steps. HMSO, London.
    • Enticott, G., 2001. Calculating nature: The case of badgers, bovine tuberculosis and cattle.
    • Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2), 149-164.
    • Enticott, G., Donaldson, A., Lowe, P., Power, M., Proctor, A., Wilkinson, K., 2011. The changing role of veterinary expertise in the food chain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366 (1573), 1955-1965.
    • Peck, J., Theodore, N., Brenner, N., 2010. Postneoliberalism and its malcontents. Antipode 41 (S1), 94-116.
    • Peck, J., Tickell, A., 2002. Neoliberalizing Space. Antipode 34, 380-404.
    • Self, P., 1993. Government by the Market? The Politics of Public Choice. Macmillan, Basingstoke.
    • Timmermans, S., Berg, M., 1997. Standardization in Action: Achieving Local Universality through Medical Protocols. Social Studies of Science 27 (2), 273-305.
    • Waterton, C., 2002. From field to fantasy: Classifying nature, constructing Europe. Social Studies of Science 32 (2), 177-204.
    • Waterton, C., 2003. Performing the classification of nature. The Sociological Review 51, 111-129.
    • Wilkinson, K., Lowe, P., Donaldson, A., 2010. Beyond policy networks: Policy framing and the politics of expertise in the 2001 foot and mouth disease crisis. Public Administration 88 (2), 331-345.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article