Book Reviews

Global Liberalism and Political Order: Toward a New Grand Compromise? Steven
Berstein and Louis Pauly (eds.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2007. 231 pp. $24.99
(paper) $70.00 (cloth).

John Ruggie’s now-classic analysis of embedded liberalism described an

agreement among Western societies (largely enacted in the post–World
War II era) whereby free trade abroad cushioned by social welfare at home
and managed through multilateral international institutions contributed
to order. This volume asks whether global forces will erode this political
order, and each essay ponders the potential for a renewed (or new) com-
promise in the face of global challenges. It examines contemporary chal-
lenges and opportunities but in a framework that both uses and questions
important academic conceptions and thus should interest policy practitio-
ners and academic specialists.
Ruggie argued in 1982 that the embedded liberalism compromise
rested on three pillars: the legitimacy of its values, pragmatic support from
powerful actors, and institutions that made practice consistent with the
values more likely. As pressures for greater market integration and the
fragmentation of political authority combined with political responses to
global fears (such as assertive U.S. unilateralism) and the increasing
importance of non-state actors, these pillars have been threatened. After
the introduction, an essay by Ruggie examines whether the pillars have
been structurally compromised or merely challenged. He finds no struc-
tural impediment to a new agreement but acknowledges many hurdles.
Most importantly, he argues that any new order will be of a different sort:
requiring cooperation not just among states but among the variety of
non-state actors such as corporations, civil society groups, and the like. He
uses the Global Compact as an example of order that draws in these
various actors.
The section on power and authority begins with a chapter by Robert
Wolfe and Matthew Mendelsohn examining Canadian citizens’ attitudes
toward globalization, free trade, and international institutions to see
whether they reflect support for the embedded liberalism compromise.
Canadian citizens are a most likely case for support given Canada’s
general support for international institutions, and they find that the legiti-
macy of embedded liberalism has not eroded in Canada. Jean-Philippe
Therien analyzes the Millennium Development Goals as a compromise
between the left-leaning development orientation of the United Nations
(and the global south) and the right-leaning orientation of the Bretton
Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 21, No. 3,
July 2008 (pp. 465–476).
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA,
and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK. ISSN 0952-1895
466 BOOK REVIEWS

Woods Institutions (and the global north). While this could be read as a part
of a new grand compromise, he argues that the United Nations remains
more concerned with inequality (and emphasizes the need for foreign aid)
while the Bretton Woods institutions with economic performance and
freedom (and emphasize growth) and does not discount the potential for
a breakdown of the consensus given already clear gaps between Millen-
nium goals and real progress. Louis Pauly claims that the United Nations’
capacity to provide a voice for civil society groups and countries concerned
with globalization’s effects is precisely what has led it to its continued role
in development even as the logic espoused by the Bretton Wood institu-
tions has become more dominant. Rather than a grand compromise, Pauly
argues, we might think of a messy (but persistent) compromise. Tony
Porter’s claim is that we need to look beyond states as the institutions that
embed liberalism. New knowledge networks such as standards, codes, and
technical authority are important sites of embedded liberalism that both
operate differently than states did in the past, and their presence has
changed the way states operate today. There is a bit of tension in this section
between the first two chapters, which focus on particular territories to
examine such concepts as citizen support and global inequality, and the
latter two chapters, which focus on the incorporation of nonterritorial
actors such as global civil society groups and knowledge networks.
The final section on integration and fragmentation presents varying
views on the future. James Rosenau discounts the potential for a new
grand compromise and sees instead “continents desirable of order and
fragmentation surrounded by oceans of undesirable tyranny and chaos.”
Eric Helleiner’s chapter on currency blocs looks at the tension between the
U.S. strategy in the Americas (an entertainment of dollarization but not an
endorsement by a largely unfettered liberal few) and the European strat-
egy with the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) (an endorsement of a
European currency bloc by liberals as well as those eager to embed liber-
alism in a larger regional institution) as both a harbinger of potential
conflict but also indications of the continued strength of the embedded
liberal view. The final chapter by Steven Bernstein and Maria Ivanova
examines the general fragmentation of the global environmental regime,
pointing out that fragmentation need not be seen in opposition to integra-
tion but that the current practice leans in that direction, limiting effective-
ness, legitimacy, and equity.
So, is there a new (or renewed) grand compromise in the works? As the
summary above should make clear, the answer is “maybe.” Although
many in the world still endorse the general principles on which embed-
ded liberalism rests, institutionalizing these principles in an era where
territorial states are no longer the only central actors is likely to be difficult.
The strongest chapters are those that address this condition head on. The
chapters by Ruggie and Porter, for instance, argue the necessity of includ-
ing such actors as corporations and knowledge networks as players in the
construction of global order and pose illustrations of how one might do
 BOOK REVIEWS 467

that. Pauly also hints at the development of a new source of legitimacy for
the United Nations as a forum where nonterritorial-based interests can
have a voice. Finally, Bernstein and Ivanova address this issue with their
suggestion of alternative institutional machinery for global environmental
governance that integrate fragmented governance forms. Thinking about
how various agents, including states, shape outcomes on the global stage
and how the relations among them generate order or disorder—or more
or less legitimate order—is crucial to understanding the future of global
governance. By posing and beginning to grapple with these questions as
they affect the future of embedded liberalism, this volume takes a step
toward such an understanding.

DEBORAH AVANT, University of California, Irvine

Going Local: Decentralization, Democratization and the Promise of Good Governance.

Merilee Grindle. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. 248 pp. $35.00
(cloth).

Merilee Grindle’s new book on local governance in Mexico asks the

important question of what best explains variation in local government
performance in the wake of increasing electoral competition and decen-
tralization reforms. Using a compelling research design of detailed inter-
views and indicators of government performance in 30 randomly selected,
medium-sized municipalities from across Mexico, she evaluates several
hypotheses to explain differences in the quality of governance.
One of the major contributions of this project is the detailed rubric for
measuring performance in local governments. Grindle focuses on five
areas of performance: efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, develop-
ment orientation, and initiatives for change. Under each category, she
and her researchers scored the government on several concrete indica-
tors. For example, to determine a government’s effectiveness, she codes
if there are regular meetings of the municipal council, if there is an
operational system for performance monitoring of personnel, if profes-
sionals run municipal offices, if councilors have their own office space,
and if the budget is made publicly available. Each municipality was
awarded a point for each of these indicators (and others) for a total of 17
points possible. This approach, focusing on multiple concrete indicators,
is a promising strategy for getting a handle on important and compli-
cated issues of government performance and one that could fruitfully be
applied elsewhere.
Grindle then focuses on four factors that might affect the quality of
governance: political competition, individual leadership, modernization
of public administration, and the demands and participation of civil
society. These hypotheses were drawn from the extensive literature
on decentralization and democratization, as well as the experience of
Mexico’s transition to democracy.
468 BOOK REVIEWS

She comes to several very surprising conclusions. First, she finds that
the competitiveness of local elections matters very little for government
performance, countering much of the received wisdom that increasing
electoral competition should improve accountability. Instead, more com-
petitive elections frequently translated into more divided municipal gov-
ernments, incentives for winners to spend resources on patronage, and
gridlock over important decisions. This lack of connection between com-
petition and performance was observable even in cases where the leaders
felt a strong pressure to perform well. So even though leaders responded
to competitive elections with a sense that they needed to perform better,
their actual performance was still frequently hindered by conflicts over
distribution with the newly powerful opposition.
Second, Grindle finds that individual leadership of mayors and other
elected and appointed officials is “the most important source of change in
local governments” and the best predictor of government performance.
This finding will be surprising to many institutionalists, who tend to
downplay the importance of individual initiatives in favor of focusing on
institutional incentives. However, in the fairly weak institutional setting of
newly democratic Mexico, where elections closely followed patterns set in
the pretransition era including patronage and “retail”-based campaigning,
the individual leadership proved remarkably important. Lacking strong
institutional constraints, some leaders were able to effect change dramati-
cally and effectively, while others were miserably inefficient. Grindle
argues that it is the very lack of institutional constraints that makes this
individual variation possible and so important to the overall performance
of government.
Third, the project addresses the extent to which capacity building ini-
tiatives and efforts to modernize public administration improve local
government. The findings on this issue are inconclusive. Although many
municipalities went through major efforts at modernization and capacity
building, these reforms were largely demand driven, not supply driven.
That is, although the resources were available, only the more effective
municipalities took advantage of the programs, making it very hard to tell
if they had an independent effect on governance.
Finally, Grindle looks at the question of civil society, asking how well
civil society mobilization explains the quality of local governance. The
connection between civil society and government performance was found
to be the weakest of the four hypotheses. Although civil society organiza-
tions were effective at extracting tangible resources from government, they
did little in the way of promoting more general types of accountability.
Overall, this project tackles an important question with a solid research
strategy and comes to some very interesting conclusions. The finding
that individual leadership is a better predictor of good governance than
electoral competition or other institutional reforms in particular ought to
provoke further discussion and research. Although intuitively the impor-
tance of leadership is compelling, it also raises some tricky policy and
 BOOK REVIEWS 469

theoretical questions about what that means for institutional reform. If

leadership is the best predictor of good governance, what can be done for
communities lacking strong leadership? Also, is leadership the pivotal
variable in other institutional settings as well? Or is this specific to newly
reformed, weak institutional settings with a great deal of holdover from
non-democratic eras? This book is a step in the right direction toward
untangling the issues surrounding good governance, decentralization,
and local level democracy. More importantly, it raises questions that
promise a fertile research agenda.

CAREW E. BOULDING, University of Colorado at Boulder

Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations. Robert Agranoff.

Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2007. 192 pp. $26.95 (paper).

Public managers from all levels of government and all types of govern-
ment organizations are increasingly expected to work in both traditional
bureaucratic settings and collaborative network settings. While there is
ample research examining bureaucracy and bureaucratic behavior, there is
far less systematic research aimed at understanding collaborative activities
between public organizations. Robert Agranoff persuasively contends
that, given their increasing prominence, it is necessary to investigate the
inner workings of these new public management networks. While these
collaborative networks are not strictly hierarchical, they are not devoid of
structure, power, and conflict. Yet, it is not clear when typical patterns of
bureaucratic behavior will hold and when they will vary. Agranoff’s book
provides a significant step forward in describing and understanding how
interorganizational public networks emerge, operate, and affect public
problems, as well as examining the impact of these networks on tradi-
tional state and local boundaries.
Agranoff uses a grounded theory approach to examine 14 different
public management networks in Midwestern and central states. Substan-
tively, these networks are diverse, ranging from economic development
to transportation planning to water management. Agranoff contends that
because so little is known about these interorganizational public net-
works, grounded theory is a reasonable starting point that could be used
to anchor future deductive research. A grounded theory approach allows
for an in-depth, systematic investigation of interorganizational networks.
Using this technique, conceptual frameworks and theory emerge from the
data. Agranoff relies upon observations, minimal participation, semistruc-
tured interviews with more than 150 network participants, and document
coding to examine interorganizational networks in terms of their func-
tions, structure, maintenance, and impacts over time. Agranoff’s book is
thoroughly researched, well written, and contains an impressive amount
of detail regarding different types of public networks, along with the
structure and patterns within these spanning organizations.
470 BOOK REVIEWS

Agranoff identifies a typology of public networks that include infor-

mational, developmental, outreach, and action networks. Interestingly,
Agranoff’s research reveals that interorganizational networks are not nec-
essarily decision making or “action” networks; indeed, only 4 of the 14
networks in this study were categorized as “action” networks. Informa-
tional networks provide and exchange information for stakeholders.
Developmental networks may provide the same service but also engage in
capacity building. Outreach networks create but do not implement strat-
egy, along with providing information and capacity building. Only action
networks engage in information exchange, capacity building, planning,
and decision making.
One key finding from this work is that while all of these networks add
some element of value to public management, the value added is context
specific, often indirect, and not necessarily in keeping with traditional
notions of “outcomes.” This should suggest many interesting areas for
future work as scholars and practitioners continue to explore and utilize
interorganizational arrangements. Agranoff’s research indicates that these
networks tend to perform seven critical functions: problem identification,
identify technological resources, adapt technological resources, provide
knowledge infrastructure, build capacity, programming, and joint policy-
making. Agranoff’s research also suggests that while these networks are
not typical bureaucracies, they do have some common organizational
traits in terms of structure.
Throughout the book, the author provides considerable detail outlining
why and how he uses grounded theory, along with explicitly noting some
of the limitations of this approach. Agranoff is convincing; given how little
systematic research examines this topic, grounded theory, inductive by
nature, is a reasonable approach. Indeed, this is a striking application of
grounded theory that is well written and easy to follow. However, the
book falls short of delivering a coherent set of hypotheses for future
research to test. This is a natural extension of the book, and given the rich
detail, Agranoff is in a strong position to direct or influence future
research on this topic. Having noted this, the final chapter of the book
does broadly suggest fertile ground for future research. Moreover, while
Agranoff does not present a table of specific relationships for future
testing, a careful reader will be able to identify these relationships. This is
a strong book, but it would be considerably stronger if he had connected
the inductive approach to logical deductive extensions.
Ultimately, this work should be of interest to multiple audiences. It is an
impressive example of transparent, systematic, qualitative research relying
upon grounded theory. Anyone teaching a research methods seminar
could utilize this work to clearly communicate the inherent difficulty
involved in conducting such in-depth research. This work should also be
of interest to anyone who studies networks. It is not a typical network
analysis, yet, it provides rich details that are well organized. Certainly, this
book is a natural resource for scholars and students interested in public
 BOOK REVIEWS 471

management. Finally, the book will also be of interest to practitioners who

participate in public management networks.

DOROTHY M. DALEY, University of Kansas

Greening Brazil: Environmental Activism in State and Society. Kathryn Hochstetler

and Margaret E. Keck. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007. 304 pp. $23.95
(paper), $84.95 (cloth).

Despite the importance that the natural environments of Latin America

have played in the economic and political development of the region since
colonial times and the impact they currently have on the state of our global
commons (Latin America has 5 of the 12 “mega-diverse” countries in the
world), there has surprisingly been little scholarship generated on the
environmental struggles, politics, and policies of specific Latin American
countries that take a broad, historical approach. This is especially the case
for Brazil, a country whose management of its natural resources and
environment has a direct impact on humanity as a whole. At long last, we
finally now have the first book that traces and analyzes the politics of
environmental protection in Brazil over the last three decades in a rigor-
ous, nuanced, and engaging manner. This book makes a very significant
contribution to the literature on environmental politics and policy in Latin
America and will undoubtedly become the definitive work on the envi-
ronmental politics of Brazil.
Taking full advantage of recent work in political science, the main
strength of Hochstetler and Keck’s work lies in the framing of their study
through the use of a variety of approaches and perspectives to present a
rich, in-depth analysis; for them, the daunting complexity of the struggles
to green Brazil requires an equally complex framework of analysis, for
otherwise the result will be a simplistic reading of events. As such, the
authors integrate into their study the concept of multilevel governance to
account for the many foci of power among state and non-state actors that
populate the various levels of government of a federal state in environmen-
tal policymaking, They look at the politics of the environment through
the interplay of formal and informal institutions, which have been, they
argue, largely responsible for advancements and reversals in attempts at
improving environmental protection. The authors therefore argue that
environmental politics and policy in Brazil have been shaped by several
interrelated factors: the process of democratization that the country under-
went in the late 1970s and 1980s; the very unique characteristics the
Brazilian green movement has acquired, more left-leaning and nationalistic
than many other movements around the world; the impact of federalism,
which complicates jurisdictional distribution of power creating large
numbers of veto players and vague mandates; and the influence of a vast
web of alliances of actors, which they call “networks of individuals,” that
become more prominent given weak institutional continuity in Brazilian
472 BOOK REVIEWS

politics and the low expectations of legal compliance that prevails among
the population at large. It is this set of factors that have rendered the
environmental policymaking process in Brazil a nonlinear and highly
unpredictable process. Contrary to the widely held international view that
mechanisms for environmental protection in Brazil, especially in the
Amazon, are weak, Hochstetler and Keck demonstrate that this is not the
case; the country possesses myriad environmental tools, such as institu-
tions and legal provisions. However, given weak institutional capacity and
political will, success is mostly achieved when robust domestic alliances
among individuals within and outside the state apply pressure on policy
and programs from their inception through to their implementation.
Their analysis of the evolution of Brazil’s green movement is particularly
compelling. The authors trace the evolution of the environmental move-
ment in Brazil along three distinct waves: the early conservationist move-
ment that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, a second wave that saw the
movement’s politicization and the adoption of “new environmentalism”
under the country’s latest military dictatorship, and the third, covering the
last 15 years, which saw an increase in interaction with international actors
and which has resulted in a broadening of the movement’s appeal, the
strengthening of socioenvironmentalism as a core objective, and a move
toward a partial professionalization of activities. Hochstetler and Keck
detail how the process of transition from the second to the third wave
of environmentalism was critical in giving the movement its very distinct
characteristics. Because of the comparatively more environmentally
friendly dictatorship Brazil had—it, for example, established the first envi-
ronment ministry and passed numerous legislations while countries such
as Argentina and Chile dismantled theirs—and the socioeconomic
inequalities that have characterized the country, Brazil’s green movement
adopted during the slow process into democratic rule a more political
approach based on socioenvironmentalism. This saw their struggles for
environmental sustainability as compatible with sustainable livelihoods
and the reduction of poverty. It was this process that has made the Brazilian
movement one of the most socially conscious and left leaning in the world.
This book is a must read for those interested in the environmental
politics of Latin America in particular and of the Global South more
generally. Given the complexity of its framework and approach, the book
is best suited for upper undergraduate and graduate students of politics,
environmental issues, and development.

JORDI DIEZ, University of Guelph

Democratic Accountability: Why Choice in Politics Is Both Possible and Necessary. Leif
Lewin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. 247 pp. $45.00 (cloth).

In his book, Democratic Accountability: Why Choice in Politics Is Both Possible

and Necessary, Leif Lewin attacks what he identifies as the seven key
 BOOK REVIEWS 473

excuses for complacent, unaccountable policymaking: History is predeter-

mined, war is inevitable, globalization limits policy choices, power
sharing crowds accountability, bureaucracies are reform proof, and
unintended outcomes often stymie the best-laid plans.
By way of refutation, the book presents a series of examples from
relatively recent history. Thus, the ability of the Atlantic bloc to contain
Soviet expansion after World War II speaks of politicians’ ability to avoid
a seemingly inevitable historical process. The European project is brought
up as evidence that war can be institutionally eradicated. United Nations
environmental initiatives seem to demonstrate that the forces of global-
ized markets can indeed be tamed. Italian politicians are seen to be unable
to hide behind coalition partners in order to avoid electoral accountability.
Margaret Thatcher, if she proved anything, proved that the bureaucracy
can be conquered. And Hitler’s decision to remain in Berlin at the close of
the war demonstrates (as, presumably, do many of his other actions) that
politicians do, sometimes, follow their principles even when rationality
dictates otherwise.
In most respects, the book lives up to its billing and to the author’s
title of professor of eloquence and government. It presents a succinct and
eminently readable argument for why choice in politics—and particu-
larly in democratic politics—is indeed both possible and necessary.
Students of politics and political theory will find it an erudite and well-
founded defense of the idea that the principles brought forward by
the Enlightenment still have a place in the modern world. As a work of
applied political theory, however, the book is more problematic. Lewin
begins by expressing his dissatisfaction with what he sees as the increas-
ingly prevalent view that contemporary circumstances have made
responsible and accountable democratic politics virtually unachievable.
Arguing to the contrary would seem to require careful empirical analy-
sis, but what Lewin gives us is instead a moral and philosophical defense
of principles, albeit a refreshing one that makes more reference to recent
history than to academic canon.
Lewin positions each of his chapter-length refutations as critical case
studies, instances in which the doomsayers should have been right but,
alas, turned out to be wrong. The first problem with this is that it is not
clear that Lewin’s opponents would themselves have approved of the
arguments as he states them. For example, in Chapter 5, Lewin argues that
“power-sharing does not exclude accountability.” But Arendt Lijphart, at
whom Lewin takes aim, has argued only that power sharing makes it
more difficult for voters to discern who is to blame. “Exclude” is thus too
strong a word, and a claim that is too easy to knock down. Likewise, in
Chapter 2, Lewin submits that if history were indeed predetermined, then
the USA and its Western European allies would not have been able to stop
the Soviet march to the Atlantic. But it is hard to conceive of a serious
Marxist theorist, with the possible exception of Stalin, who would have
seen such Soviet dominance as truly inevitable.
474 BOOK REVIEWS

As a result, Lewin’s critical case studies more closely resemble histori-

cally grounded essays, missing the sort of thick analysis or process tracing
that could have dealt with more nuanced arguments about modern demo-
cratic politics. Applying critical case methods to such a grand historical
project was, in any case, bound to be difficult. But this reviewer is left
feeling that the cases selected may not have been as critical as they were
initially made out to be.
More fundamentally, though, Lewin does not address the most power-
ful, empirically grounded arguments about the circumscription of con-
temporary democratic policymaking. No reference is made to Mancur
Olson’s classic argument that minority interests tend to calcify the politi-
cal process nor the body of literature that have followed that line of
thought. Nor does Lewin address the growing Varieties of Capitalism
literature, with its political economy argument that interlocking economic
and sociopolitical institutions have a gravitational pull on reform trajecto-
ries that is extremely difficult to break.
Thus, in the chapter on globalization, Lewin refutes the argument that
national politicians are powerless against global markets by reporting that
leaders, responding presumably to citizens’ concerns, have forged an
admittedly shaky but nonetheless real global agenda to fight climate
change. From a moral standpoint, this is clearly important: If politicians
are demonstrably capable of action, there is no reasonable excuse for
inaction. But the structural argument is left untouched, and the chapter
does not address the mechanical factors by which increasing financial and
economic integration have altered the policymaking environment, remov-
ing some policy options from the table altogether. From an empiricist’s
point of view, this is likely to be the more important question.
In limiting his debate to Fukuyama, Lijphart, Popper, and other pre-
eminent political theorists, Lewin perhaps inevitably restricts himself to a
discussion on philosophical grounds. In that framework, there exist only
actors and actions, the purposiveness and meaningfulness of which Lewin
addresses at length and with great skill. But it is a framework devoid of
structure, as though institutions do not exist or do not matter, and as a
result, the book falls down. Lewin ably demonstrates that choice in
modern democratic politics is necessary. Unfortunately, however, the book
adds little to our understanding of the degree to which choice is possible.

SAMUEL A. GREENE, London School of Economics

The Politics of Biotechnology in North America and Europe. Eric Monpetit, Christine
Rothmayr, and Frédéric Varone (eds.). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006.
304 pp. $90.00 (cloth).

This edited volume analyzes the politics of biotechnology in Europe and

North America. More specifically it focuses on both red and green bio-
technology, in the form of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and
 BOOK REVIEWS 475

genetically modified organisms (GMO). The purpose of the book is to

explain policy differences in these two areas. Policy differences are under-
stood in terms of whether a country has a permissive, restrictive, or
intermediate policy regime in the two areas. The book has a common
theoretical introduction, a chapter on the international regulation of
these two areas, nine country chapters (the USA, the United Kingdom,
Germany, France, Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, and
Canada), and a chapter featuring cross-national analysis using a qualitative
comparative analysis (QCA) approach.
There are many reasons why the aims of this book are interesting. The
introduction highlights two. The policy areas in question have become so
important that they deserve attention on their own right, and the study
offers a contribution to the comparative public policy literature. In my
view, there are at least two further reasons why the topic deserves broad
scholarly interest. First, the issues addressed in the book are new issues in
both North American and West European politics and involve political
conflicts that are quite different from traditional left-right cleavages, which
have formed the basis of much political science and policy theory. In other
words, these are issues that challenge our theoretical capacity. Second,
studying these issues raises the question of a USA/Europe divide, which
is visible in other areas as well.
The analytical approach of the book is to study policy variation from
three perspectives: the policy network perspective, which focuses on
sector differences; the cross-national perspective, which focuses on cross
national differences; and the international approach, which focuses on
cross-national conformity due to international regulation and other inter-
national dynamics. Especially within the cross-national perspective, a
number of specific theories are included to develop hypotheses about
national variation. The country chapters lay out both politics and policy
with regard to ART and GMO, and these analyses provide the data for the
QCA analyses at the end.
Edited volumes always have the danger of falling apart in the sense that
the common questions asked in the introduction disappear from the
country chapters, and as a result systematic comparative analysis does not
really emerge. This is not a problem in this book. The theoretical framework
is strong enough to structure the country-specific developments in a way
that makes the QCA analysis at the end both interesting and convincing.
In terms of conclusions, the book tends to find the most evidence for the
cross-national approach compared to the network and internationalization
approaches. There is some, though far from perfect, consistency in how
countries have approached the two sectors. The QCA analysis then shows
how different combinations of factors lead to both different and similar
policy outcomes. This is a typical result of QCA analysis. It is disappoint-
ing for those looking for a clear explanatory message from the book.
However such findings also send a clear message, that there are no simple
theoretical explanations for the policy patterns laid out in the book.
476 BOOK REVIEWS

The book is undoubtedly a major advance in our understanding of

biotechnology policies. It is a must read for anyone interested in under-
standing bio-technology from policy and political perspectives. However,
as with any good book, it raises just as many questions as it provides
answers.
First, the book raises the questions about politics and policy and their
relationship. The difference between the USA and Europe when it comes
to bio-technology is not just about policy; it also about politicization. In
the USA, for instance, stem cell research has been an issue in presidential
elections. In Europe, on the other hand, bio-technology rarely garners
similar levels of attention. The book also discusses the role of Christian
Democratic parties, without establishing clearly how they impact policy. It
might be, for instance, that the main effect of Christian Democratic parties
is on politics, shaping the nature of political conflicts but where the
outcome (policy) is not given. More focus on these two aspects and their
relationship could be a way to tie together the different explanations,
which often follow from QCA analysis.
Second, the inclusion of both red and green bio-technology in the
analysis is both a strength and weakness of the book. Engaging sectoral
and country comparisons is a strong aspect of the book. However, the two
policy areas, red and green bio-technology, are in fact quite different.
GMOs are possibly connected to environmental issues and agricultural
policy, whereas ART is a health issue. The book does show cross-national
similarities when it comes to regulating the two areas, but this is to some
extent expected given the few categories into which policy outcomes are
classified. The country chapters, on the other hand, typically tell quite
different stories about the two issues. Comparing ART with other bio-
medical issues and likewise GMOs with environmental issues and the
regulation of agriculture could, for instance, provide a logical way forward
from the comparative foundations laid out by this very stimulating book

CHRISTOFFER GREEN-PEDERSEN, University of Aarhus, Denmark