{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027046783625730993, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.810945273631841, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
“Smart regulation” and community cooperation in Australia’s modern biosecurity context

ABSTRACT Neoliberal governments increasingly encourage greater industry and community self-reliance. This article investigates the potential use of “smart regulation”, that is, complementary policy instruments, in a context where reliance on voluntary approaches to achieve local cooperation is problematic. It explores the case of industry-driven “area-wide management” (AWM) of fruit fly, a potentially devastating mobile pest. AWM involves synchronised pest management across a geographical area. As host plants in nearby town backyards and peri-urban areas create fruit fly breeding places, pest management is also needed here. In Australia, most local horticulture industries are expected to drive these initiatives to minimise damage to their crops and market opportunities. AWM offers an example of where the beneficiaries are concentrated, but the risk contributors are diffused. Mixed-methods research was applied involving three Australian case studies. Considerations for four policy instruments that could be included in a “smart regulation” approach are explored. The article shows that applying “smart regulation” promises a prudent way forward when governments expect industry self-reliance, but where industry has limited influence over diffused risk contributors.