Failed It or Nailed It: A Historical-Comparative Analysis of Legislating Bushmeat Ban in China

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW Chinese Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2021-11-02 DOI:10.1093/cjcl/cxab012
Liuyang He, Hui Li
{"title":"Failed It or Nailed It: A Historical-Comparative Analysis of Legislating Bushmeat Ban in China","authors":"Liuyang He, Hui Li","doi":"10.1093/cjcl/cxab012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract One of the prominent policy responses to COVID-19 by the Chinese government is a recent complete ban on trade and the consumption of wild animals for food use purposes. Despite some discussions and debates in media coverage, the policy has not obtained much scholarly discussion from a public policy perspective. This article aims to fill the research gap by examining the policy formation process of the complete ban. The study conducts a historical-comparative analysis of the three legislative attempts on the bushmeat ban in 2004, 2016, and 2020, applying the multiple streams framework (MSF). We identify six key explanatory factors contributing to the successful formulation of the strictest-ever bushmeat ban. Five corroborate with the problem, policy, and political streams respectively: (i) the existence of an exogenous zoonosis-related crisis as background (problem stream); (ii) the attention and support from the top-level political leaders (political stream); (iii) the national mood (political stream); (iv) proposals from both internal and external policy advisors and experts (policy stream); and (v) feasibility of the proposed solutions (policy stream). The sixth—the role of policy entrepreneurs—serves as a fundamental driving force in shaping and coupling the three streams.","PeriodicalId":42366,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxab012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract One of the prominent policy responses to COVID-19 by the Chinese government is a recent complete ban on trade and the consumption of wild animals for food use purposes. Despite some discussions and debates in media coverage, the policy has not obtained much scholarly discussion from a public policy perspective. This article aims to fill the research gap by examining the policy formation process of the complete ban. The study conducts a historical-comparative analysis of the three legislative attempts on the bushmeat ban in 2004, 2016, and 2020, applying the multiple streams framework (MSF). We identify six key explanatory factors contributing to the successful formulation of the strictest-ever bushmeat ban. Five corroborate with the problem, policy, and political streams respectively: (i) the existence of an exogenous zoonosis-related crisis as background (problem stream); (ii) the attention and support from the top-level political leaders (political stream); (iii) the national mood (political stream); (iv) proposals from both internal and external policy advisors and experts (policy stream); and (v) feasibility of the proposed solutions (policy stream). The sixth—the role of policy entrepreneurs—serves as a fundamental driving force in shaping and coupling the three streams.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
失败还是被钉死:我国制定布什肉禁令的历史比较分析
中国政府应对COVID-19的重要政策之一是最近全面禁止以食用为目的的野生动物贸易和消费。尽管媒体报道中有一些讨论和争论,但从公共政策的角度来看,这项政策并没有得到太多的学术讨论。本文旨在通过考察全面禁令的政策形成过程来填补这一研究空白。该研究应用多流框架(MSF)对2004年、2016年和2020年三次禁止丛林肉的立法尝试进行了历史比较分析。我们确定了六个关键的解释因素,有助于成功制定有史以来最严格的丛林肉禁令。五个分别与问题流、政策流和政治流相印证:(i)存在外源性人畜共患病相关危机作为背景(问题流);(二)最高层政治领导人(政治流)的关注和支持;(iii)国民情绪(政治流);(iv)内部和外部政策顾问和专家的建议(政策流);(五)提出的解决方案(政策流)的可行性。第六,政策企业家的作用,是形成和联结这三股流的根本推动力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law (CJCL) is an independent, peer-reviewed, general comparative law journal published under the auspices of the International Academy of Comparative Law (IACL) and in association with the Silk Road Institute for International and Comparative Law (SRIICL) at Xi’an Jiaotong University, PR China. CJCL aims to provide a leading international forum for comparative studies on all disciplines of law, including cross-disciplinary legal studies. It gives preference to articles addressing issues of fundamental and lasting importance in the field of comparative law.
期刊最新文献
Navigating Judicial Conflict amidst Jurisdictional Expansion: Common Law Commercial Courts in Arab Civil Law Countries Report on Sino–Indian Border Disputes: International Law and International Relations Perspectives Loss of a Loved One: An Empirical Study of Pain and Suffering Awards in Wrongful Death Cases in China Workplace Sexual Harassment in China: A Comparative Inquiry into the Personality-Based Paradigm China’s Family Education Promotion Law: Family Governance, the Responsible Parent and the Moral Child
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1