Bureaucratic Politics Embedded in Path Dependence and Legislative Success: The Legislative Process of the Act on the Genetic Resources

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-74
Author(s):  
Chang Soo Kim
2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 35-64
Author(s):  
Marcos Vinício Chein Feres ◽  
Pedro Henrique Oliveira Cuco ◽  
João Vitor De Freitas Moreira

Esse artigo investiga a elaboração legislativa sobre acesso e remessa do patrimônio genético e conhecimento tradicional associado, considerando a Lei 13.123/15, conhecida como Marco da Biodiversidade brasileiro. Questiona-se se o reconhecimento dos povos tradicionais foi solapado neste processo, de acordo com os conceitos de Axel Honneth sobre direito e estima social. Foram utilizados como dados empíricos a Lei 13.123/15, o Projeto de Lei 7.735/14, o Projeto de Lei da Câmara 02/15 e a Medida Provisória 2.186-16/01, de modo a se organizarem as decisões institucionais dos poderes Legislativo e Executivo brasileiros cronologicamente. As manifestações dos representantes dos povos tradicionais foram coletadas para se averiguar se a agenda dos povos tradicionais foi um elemento preponderante na configuração das normas relacionadas ao acesso e remessa. Em conclusão, pode-se afirmar que o reconhecimento dos povos tradicionais foi negado e a sua agenda foi praticamente ignorada na nova política legal de acesso e remessa do patrimônio genético e conhecimento tradicional associado. Abstract This article investigates the legislative elaboration of normative dispositions concerning access to genetic resources and remittance as well as traditional knowledge, taking into consideration the Brazilian Act 13,123/2015, known as Biodiversity benchmark. This study aims to verify if the traditional people’s demands were disregarded in the legislative process, stemming from Axel Honneth’s concepts of legal and social esteem recognition. Using the Act n. 13,123/2015, the Draft Bill 7,735/2014, the House of Representative’s Draft Bill 02/2015 and the Provisional Measure 2,186-16/01 as empirical data, the Legislative and Executive Branches’ decisions regarding the Biodiversity benchmark were chronologically organized as well as cross-referenced with the claims of Traditional Peoples. Subsequently, it is possible to validate if the traditional people’s agenda was taken into account in the legislative process, considering access to genetic resources and remittance. In conclusion, it can be stated that the recognition of traditional people was denied and their agenda was virtually ignored in the new legal document apropos of the access to genetic resources and remittance as well as traditional knowledge.


2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (01) ◽  
pp. 2150001
Author(s):  
XIAOJUN LI

On March 15, 2019, the National People’s Congress passed a long-anticipated Foreign Investment Law (FIL) after a short deliberation period of only three months. This expedited legislative process seems unusual, considering that the original draft of the FIL proposed by the Ministry of Commerce in January 2015 was tabled indefinitely after a brief period of public consultation. How can we explain this stark difference? Comparing the legislative processes and contents of the two laws, this paper shows that, as with many previous laws, bureaucratic politics likely contributed to an impasse in the 2015 draft, whereas external shocks—in this case, the escalating trade war between China and the United States—helped accelerate the deliberation process and the passage of the new FIL. These two cases demonstrate the durability of lawmaking institutions and procedures under Xi Jinping despite the recentralization of power in the executive after changes to the constitution.


1989 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Gottlieb ◽  
◽  
Florence W. Kaslow

Planta Medica ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 78 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
JS Sung ◽  
CW Jeong ◽  
YY Lee ◽  
HS Lee ◽  
YA Jeon ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 51-81
Author(s):  
D. P. Frolov

The transaction cost economics has accumulated a mass of dogmatic concepts and assertions that have acquired high stability under the influence of path dependence. These include the dogma about transaction costs as frictions, the dogma about the unproductiveness of transactions as a generator of losses, “Stigler—Coase” theorem and the logic of transaction cost minimization, and also the dogma about the priority of institutions providing low-cost transactions. The listed dogmas underlie the prevailing tradition of transactional analysis the frictional paradigm — which, in turn, is the foundation of neo-institutional theory. Therefore, the community of new institutionalists implicitly blocks attempts of a serious revision of this dogmatics. The purpose of the article is to substantiate a post-institutional (alternative to the dominant neo-institutional discourse) value-oriented perspective for the development of transactional studies based on rethinking and combining forgotten theoretical alternatives. Those are Commons’s theory of transactions, Wallis—North’s theory of transaction sector, theory of transaction benefits (T. Sandler, N. Komesar, T. Eggertsson) and Zajac—Olsen’s theory of transaction value. The article provides arguments and examples in favor of broader explanatory possibilities of value-oriented transactional analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document