This thesis explores the ways that stakeholder's in the animal industries attempt to guide animal welfare policy outcomes, based on the case study of the debate currently taking place in Canada around proposed amendments to the Health of Animals Regulations, which governs humane transport. Involved in this debate are industry groups, animal advocacy groups, and multiple levels of government, each of which frames the issues in ways that support particular regulatory responses. The research draws on the policy theory of Deborah Stone in order to examine the power dynamics in these negotiations. Through an examination of the discourse of 'sound science', economics-as-science, and the 'public interest' this thesis argues that the amendment process of humane transport is strategically framed by government and industry stakeholders in order to download decision-making authority onto the livestock industry itself, thereby limiting the potential for the effective regulation of the transport of agricultural animals.
|Department||Institute of Political Economy|
|Degree||Master of Arts|
|Cite this work||
Researchers should cite this work as follows: