English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

When conducting comparative research on regulation, difficulties in grasping the differences between the regulatory approaches of various countries are frequently encountered. These difficulties can be traced back to an organisational deficit inherent to the scholarly assessments in that field. This defint can be detected in their conceptual fuzziness, which leads to an understanding of regulation that appears to be inadequate with respect to the processes which occur when a legal rule is introduced into a field that it was originally designed to regulate. Here, the concept of organisational fields is introduced as a tool aimed at fadlitating a more adequate understanding of these processes. Organisations as well as their environment become the focus of analysis, whereby their central position within regulatory styles is emphasised. Finally, in the appraisal of organisations and their central status in the regulatory process, it becomes evident that the notion of regulation has to be re-defined.

Overcoming the Organisational Deficit in Research on Regulation: The Conflict over GM Food in Germany and the United States