Cirad is a French research centre working with developing countries to tackle international agricultural and development issue. Cirad proposes a three years grant for a PhD thesis, in political sciences, based in Montpellier France. The thesis will be part of a global pluridisciplinary research project on emerging animal diseases (including virologists, epidemiologists, vets and social scientists. The thesis will address the question of the evolution of the international governance in this field. / Le CIRAD propose une bourse de 3 ans pour une thèse en sociologie politique, sciences politiques, basée à Montpellier, France. Cet travail de thèse s'inscrit dans un projet pluridisciplinaire sur les maladies émergentes animales (réunissant des virologues, épidémiologistes, vétérinaires, sociologues et politistes). La thèse portera sur l'analyse de la gouvernance internationale des émergences zoosanitaires.

Thesis grant : International governance of emerging animal diseases

Cirad is a French research centre working with developing countries to tackle international agricultural and development issues[1]. Cirad proposes a three years grant for a PhD thesis, in Montpellier France.  The thesis will be part of a global pluridisciplinary research project on emerging animal diseases (including virologists, epidemiologists, vets and social scientists)[2]. The thesis will address the question of the evolution of the international governance in this field.

Context of the research

Recent international health crises linked to the emergence of the SARS virus (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) or influenza viruses (H5N1 or H1N1) have been accompanied by international organisations such as the WHO (World Health Organisation), the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) and the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) promoting the definition of a new international health governance model.

This redefinition reflects both the new nature of the risks to be managed and a new attitude towards risk as well as a redistribution of the levels of intervention leading to a revision of the role of the states.

Over the past thirty years, the terminology used by both researchers and experts to qualify the risks has expanded considerably: we talk of modern, major, industrial, collective, systemic, emerging and global risks and many more besides. This proliferation of the vocabulary reflects the abundance of works undertaken on this theme. It also expresses a renewed and broader notion of risk. Within the community of international experts (WHO, OIE, FAO, OECD, etc.), these revised qualifications are, despite their differences, generally based on a certain number of consensuses, in particular with regard to the models of risk governance to be promoted which are to be founded on internationalisation, de-sectoralisation, an objective of management rather than eradication and a widening of the stakeholders network involved in this governance.

These changes, as seen on an international scale, reflect what many researchers in the social sciences have identified as a shift from “risk” management to “threat” management (Gilbert, 2002), from the management of “traditional risks” to the management of “new risks” (Godard et al., 2002), or even from the management of “first modernity risks” to the management of “second modernity risks” (Beck, 2001), attributing to current risks a new nature or rather emphasising the new terms of the social process from which they result.

The terms are deemed “more open to controversy, to the participation of numerous actors: in other words less under the sole control of experts and scientists” (Borraz 2008). Thus, studying the evolution of the risk analysis frameworks using the case of the Codex Alimentarius and the NRC Red Book (Millstone, 2009; Renn, 2008) confirms the increased openness to the public extending beyond the simple communication phase to gradually include the selection of management options and even the problem definition phase. While, as O. Borraz (2008) stresses, it is not necessarily a question of more democratic terms for defining the problem and intervening than previously, this evolution nevertheless bears witness to the fact that these terms are no longer necessarily first and foremost dependent on the public authority. These changes in the terms of the debate and in the participating actors encourage us to examine the dynamics of the controversies and debates as well as the processes of the progressive selection of alternatives and terms (Fouilleux, 2009).

Furthermore, the context of globalisation also leads to changing scales in the direction of international coordination. Various authors (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1984; Renn, 2008) have demonstrated that modes of governance vary from one country to another according to contextual factors such as organisational capacity, the political and regulatory culture, the risk culture and the social climate.

The governance tools implemented recently on an international scale (in particular the “One World, One Health” strategic framework, WHO, FAO, OIE, UNICEF, WCS) assume the existence of a consensus and a common vision with regard to these threats, neglecting political differences and conflicts of interest: this strategy, according to Scoones and Forster (2008), is dominated by a vision of the North focusing on health security (promoting outbreak narratives and shaping the response in term of surveillance), putting to one aside the question of structural inequality of access to resources and of exposure to risk.

In such a context, examining national cultural differences and styles of management, and analysing how they influence each other, becomes a major subject for research according to Taylor-Gooby and Zinn (2006), Figuié and Fournier (2010).  However, there are still relatively few works on this subject and those which exist primarily focus on developed countries (see Löfsted and Vogel, 2001 with regard to Europe and the United States or Demortain, 2009 concerning the dissemination of the HACCP technique).

Furthermore, there is a real incentive, both scientific and societal, to work on the conditions for implementing this health governance in the context of the relations between developed countries (major players in the international demarcation of the problem of health emergence) and developing countries (often seen as the source of the emergence).

The PhD research

The thesis work may endeavour to answer the following question:

“To what extent does the international health governance implemented in relation to SARS and avian flu reflects a new attitude towards risk and the construction of international health intervention?”

The objective of this work would be to contribute to the current research focus in the sociology of risk: the works in this field have, until now, focused primarily on the analysis of the role of the different actors (civil societies, private sector) with a view to ensuring that risk management through regulatory tools is included on the agenda of the public authorities. The objective of this thesis is to go beyond these approaches to examine actors and management tools on an international scale, the main characteristic of these tools being that they rely less on coercion and more on recommendation, offering states incentives to fall into line with regard to common rules while the “common good” is systematically emphasised.

The thesis work may examine the innovations produced by the global health emergences through the official documents produced by two major international organisations which have examined the problem of emerging zoonoses: the WHO -World health organization- and the OIE -World animal health organisation. In-depth interviews will be conducted with experts of these organisations. The student will also carry on field research in countries occupying different positions in the field of emerging diseases (a field which must be characterised). These countries will be chosen according to the experience of the research team through past or current projects and the profile of the candidate: South East Asia or the Mediterranean.

Host institution

Law and political sciences doctorate school at University Montpellier 1[3]. Possible joint supervision agreement with a foreign university.

Host laboratories: CIRAD and CEPEL (Montpellier- France).

Thesis director and supervisor

• Eve Fouilleux, political science, thesis supervisor CNRS-Cepel, Univ Montp 1
• Muriel Figuié, sociology, joint supervisor, CIRAD, UMR Moisa

Possible international co-tutorship.

Financial conditions

Fixed term contract with CIRAD; €1,663.22 gross per month over three years. Operating costs covered.

Candidate profile

• Master in Sociology (political sociology, sociology of science and technology, sociology of risk) or Political Science (public policy analysis, international relations) with a strong interest in field work and socio-technical aspects.
• or agronomy engineer or veterinarian with an excellent awareness of the social sciences, preferably with training in this field.
• Excellent level of English. French appreciated
• Aptitude for teamwork. Mobility (field trips to be undertaken)
• Availability from the final quarter of 2011.

Contact

• Eve Fouilleux, eve.fouilleux@cirad.fr
• Muriel Figuié, muriel.figuie@cirad.fr

Please send a CV and letter of application to both of the above addresses,

before 1st of august.

Notes

[1]  http://www.cirad.fr/en

[2] This thesis work will be included in the activities of the “Emerging diseases and sanitary risks: Governing emerging animal diseases” (ATPd, WP 2) (coord. Muriel Figuie, Moisa, Financing CIRAD).

[3] http://en.www.univ-montp1.fr/