Advocacy Coalitions, External Perturbations and Policy Changes: Understanding the Intensity of Tobacco Control Policy in Spain, Mexico and Uruguay

Authors

  • Miguel Adolfo Guajardo Mendoza Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE)
  • José Ramón Gil-García Centro para la Tecnología en el Gobierno de la Universidad de Albany, SUNY.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29265/gypp.v29i2.781

Keywords:

tobacco, institutional framework, health policy, stakeholders, social change

Abstract

This article studies why some countries have more stringent policies for tobacco control than others. Three cases were studied that confirm two hypotheses of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). First, in all cases the policies intensified, to great extent, due to external perturbations of a normative type (EPN). Second, only in Uruguay did the policies intensify due to external perturbations by changes in government (EPCG). For the epn we find that the factors that enabled the change in policies were the durability and internal coordination within the minority coalition. And for the EPCG were the position of the new ruling coalition and its ability to change the policy on its own. Also, the epn were more important for Spain while the EPGC were more relevant for Mexico and Uruguay. This should be further investigated to determine if there is a relation between external perturbations and the context of each country.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Miguel Adolfo Guajardo Mendoza, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE)

Licenciado en Economía por el Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM), Campus Monterrey. Concluyó una maestría en Administración y Políticas Públicas en el Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE) en 2006. Se graduó del doctorado en Políticas Públicas en el CIDE en 2013. Fue director en la Coordinación de Asesores de subsecretario de Asuntos Legislativos de la Secretaría de Gobernación en 2009; profesor asociado del CIDE en 2009; asesor de Políticas Públicas de Tecnología e Innovación para Microsoft México de 2011 a 2013; director de Análisis Estadístico y Evaluación en el Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (Conacyt) de 2014 a 2018; director adjunto de Planeación y Evaluación en el Conacyt de 2017 a 2018; así como profesor asociado del CIDE de 2018 a la actualidad. Tiene diferentes publicaciones relacionadas con la evaluación del desempeño, el cambio en políticas públicas y políticas de ciencia y tecnología.

José Ramón Gil-García, Centro para la Tecnología en el Gobierno de la Universidad de Albany, SUNY.

Profesor-investigador del Departamento de Administración Pública y Director de Investigación del Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY). Es miembro del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores en México (SNI), nivel III y miembro de la Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (AMC). En 2009, fue considerado el autor más prolífico en gobierno digital a nivel mundial. En 2013 recibió el Premio de Investigación, que es considerado “la distinción más alta que otorga anualmente la AMC a jóvenes investigadores destacados”. Sus artículos están entre los más citados en el campo de la investigación del gobierno electrónico a nivel mundial. Sus intereses de investigación incluyen: gobierno electrónico colaborativo, integración de información y colaboración interorganizacional, ciudades y gobiernos inteligentes, adopción e implementación de tecnologías emergentes, políticas de combate a la brecha digital, nueva gerencia pública, evaluación de políticas públicas y aproximaciones de investigación multimétodos.

References

Akhtar, P.C., D.B. Currie, C.E. Currie y S.J. Haw (2007), “Changes in Child Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (chets) Study after Implementation of Smoke-free Legislation in Scotland: National Cross Sectional Survey”, BMJ, 335, p. 545, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39311.550197.AE.

Albright, E.A. (2011), “Policy Change and Learning in Response to Extreme Flood Events in Hungary: An Advocacy Coalition Approach”, Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), pp. 485-511.

Ameringer, C.F. (2002), “Federal Antitrust Policy and Physician Discontent: Defining Moments in the Struggle for Congressional Relief”, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 27(4), pp. 543-574.

Arno, P.S., A.M. Brandt, L.O. Gostin y J. Morgan (1996), “Tobacco Industry Strategies to Oppose Federal Regulation”, jama, 275(16), pp. 1258-1262.

Bader, P., D. Boisclair y R. Ferrence (2011), “Effects of Tobacco Taxation and Pricing on Smoking Behavior in High Risk Populations: A Knowledge Synthesis”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(11), pp. 4118-4139.

Balbachevsky, E. (2013), “Advocacy Coalitions in Brazilian Higher Education: The Role of the Main Stakeholders in Shaping the New Social Contract for Brazilian Higher Education”, presentado en la XXVI Annual cher Conference (Consortium of Higher Education Researchers), Universidad de Lausana, 9-11 de septiembre.

Barbieri, N. (2012), “Why Does Cultural Policy Change? Policy Discourse and Policy Subsystem: A Case Study of the Evolution of Cultural Policy in Catalonia”, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18(1), pp. 13-30.

Barke, R.P. y H.C. Jenkins-Smith (1993), “Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy”, Risk Analysis, 13(4), pp. 425-439.

Benz, A. y B. Eberlein (1999), “The Europeanization of Regional Policies: Patterns of Multi-level Governance”, Journal of European Public Policy, 6(2), pp. 329-348.

Bischoff, D.P. (2001), “Extension of Authority to Confer Bachelor of Education Degrees in Alberta”, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XLVII(1), pp. 40-46.

Bukowski, J. (2007), “Spanish Water Policy and the National Hydrological Plan: An Advocacy Coalition Approach to Policy Change”, South European Society & Politics, 12(1), pp. 39-57.

Cantrell, J. y D. Shelley (2009), “Implementing a Fax Referral Program for Quit Line Smoking Cessation Services in Urban Health Centers: A Qualitative Study”, bmc Family Practice, 10(81), DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-10-81.

Chaloupka, F.J. y E.W. Warner (2000), “The Economics of Smoking”, en A.J. Culyer y J.P. Newhouse (eds.), Handbook of Health Economics, vol. 1, parte B, pp. 1539-1627.

Ciresi, M.V., R.B. Walburn y T.D. Sutton (1999), “Decades of Deceit: Document Discovery in the Minnesota Tobacco Litigation”, William Mitchell Law Review, 25(2), pp. 477-566.

Collin, J., E. LeGresley, R. MacKenzie, S. Lawrence y K. Lee (2004), “Complicity in Contraband: British American Tobacco and Cigarette Smuggling in Asia”, Tobacco Control, 13(2), pp. ii104-ii111.

Dilley, J.H., M. Boysun y T. Reid (2012), “Program, Policy, and Price Interventions for Tobacco Control: Quantifying the Return on Investment of a State Tobacco Control Program”, American Journal of Public Health, 102(2), pp. e22-e28.

Figueroa-Huencho, V. (2014), “The Process of Indigenous Policy in Chile: An Analysis from the Advocacy Coalition Framework Perspective”, en M. Rocha Lukic y C. Tomazini (eds.), Analyzing Public Policies in Latin America: A Cognitive Approach, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.

Fischer, M. (2014), “Coalition Structures and Policy Change in a Consensus Democracy”, Policy Studies Journal, 42(3), pp. 344-366.

Frisbee, S. y D. Studlar (2011), “Local Tobacco Control Coalitions in the United States and Canada: Contagion across the Border?”, presentado en la XI Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, Wilfrid Laurier University, 16-18 de mayo.

Green, M. y B. Houlihan (2004), “Advocacy Coalitions and Elite Sport Policy Change in Canada and the United Kingdom”, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 39(4), pp. 387-403.

Hammond, D., F. Harris y S. Anderson (2003), “Effects of the Advertising/Promotion Ban in the United Kingdom on Awareness of Tobacco Marketing: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey”, Tobacco Control, 15(3), pp.iii26–iii33.

Hiilamo, H., E. Crosbie y S.A. Glantz (2014), “The Evolution of Health Warning Labels on Cigarette Packs: The Role of Precedents, and Tobacco Industry Strategies to Block Diffusion”, Tobacco Control, 23(1), e2, DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050541.

Henry, A.D., K. Ingold, D. Nohrstedt y C.M. Weible (2014), “Policy Change in Comparative Contexts: Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework Outside of Western Europe and North America”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(4), pp. 299-312.

HEW (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare) (1964), Smoking and Health. Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, Public Health Service Publication 1103.

Ingold, K. (2011), “Network Structures within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy”, Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), pp. 435-459.

Jenkins-Smith, H.C. y P.A. Sabatier (1993), “The Study of Public Policy Processes”, en P.A. Sabatier y H.C. Jenkins-Smith (eds.), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 1-9.

Jordan, A. y J. Greenaway (1998), “Shifting Agendas, Changing Regulatory Structures and the ‘New’ Politics of Environmental Pollution: British Coastal Water Policy, 1955-1995”, Public Administration, 76(4), pp. 669-694.

Lasswell, H.D., D. Lerner y H.H. Fisher (1951), The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method, Stanford, Stanford University Press.

Lee, K., A.B. Gilmore y J. Collin (2004), “Looking Inside the Tobacco Industry: Revealing Insights from the Guildford Depository”, Addiction, 99(4), pp. 394-397.

Lodge, M. y K. Matus (2014), “Science, Badgers, Politics: Advocacy Coalitions and Policy Change in Bovine Tuberculosis Policy in Britain”, Policy Studies Journal, 42(3), pp. 367-390.

López-Sánchez, E.R. y E. del Campo (2014), “Patterns, Trends and Policy Processes in Spanish Secondary Education: Multiple Streams in a Multilevel Context”, Central European Public Administration Review, 12(4), pp. 115-134.

Majone, G. (1980), “The Uses of Policy Analysis”, Policy Studies Review Annual, 4, pp. 161-180.

Majone, G. (1989), Evidencia, argumentación y persuasión en el diseño de las políticas, México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Mawhinney, H.B. (1993), “An Advocacy Coalition Approach to Change in Canadian Education”, en H.C. Jenkins-Smith y P.A. Sabatier (eds.), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 59-82.

Moore, R. (2009), “Securing the Health of Disadvantaged Women: A Critical Investigation of Tobacco-control Policy Effects on Women Worldwide”, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(2), S117-S120.

Mora, J.G. y J. Vidal (2005), “Two Decades of Change in Spanish Universities: Learning the Hard Way”, en Å. Gornitzka, M. Kogan y A. Amaral (eds.), Reform and Change in Higher Education: Higher Education Dynamics, vol. 8, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 135-152.

Nagenhout, G., D. Levy y L. Currie (2012), “The Effect of Tobacco Control Policies on Smoking Prevalence and Smoking Attributable Deaths: Findings from the Netherlands Tobacco Control Policy Simulation Model”, Addiction, 107(2), pp. 407-416.

Neuman, M., A. Bitton y S. Glantz (2002), “Tobacco Industry Strategies for Influencing European Community Tobacco Advertising Legislation”, The Lancet 359(9314), pp. 1323-1330.

Nohrstedt, D. (2010), “Do Advocacy Coalitions Matter? Crisis and Change in Swedish Nuclear Energy Policy”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), pp. 309-333.

OMS (Organización Mundial de la Salud) (1999), International Consultation on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and Child Health, Ginebra: OMS, 11-14 de enero.

OMS (Organización Mundial de la Salud) (2004), Convenio Marco para el Control del Tabaco (CMCT), Ginebra: OMS.

OMS (Organización Mundial de la Salud) (2010), Informe sobre la situación mundial de las enfermedades no transmisibles, Ginebra: OMS.

OMS (Organización Mundial de la Salud) (2011), Informe sobre la epidemia mundial de tabaquismo, Ginebra: OMS.

Piffre O. (2015), “Understanding Health Policy Change in Post Dictatorship Chile (2000-2006): An Advocacy Coalition Framework Analysis”, preparado para la II International Conference of Public Policy (ICPP), Milán, 1-4 de julio.

Philpot, S., S.A. Ryan, L. Torres (1999), “Effect of Smoke-free Policies on the Behavior of Social Smokers”, Tobacco Control, 8(3), pp. 278-281.

Pressman, J.L. y A. Wildavsky (1973), Implementation, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sabatier, P.A. (1988), “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-oriented Learning Therein”, Policy Sciences, 21(2-3), pp. 129-168.

Sabatier, P.A. (1993), “Policy Change over a Decade or More”, en P.A. Sabatier y H.C. Jenkins-Smith (eds.), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 13-39.

Sabatier, P.A. y H.C. Jenkins-Smith (1993), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P.A. y H.C. Jenkins-Smith (1999) “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment”, en P.A. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 117-168.

Sanjurjo García, D. (2013), “El cambio en las políticas de estupefacientes: El ejemplo de Uruguay”, Revista Jurídica Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 27.

Schlager, E. (1995), “Policy Making and Collective Action: Defining Coalitions within the Advocacy Coalition Framework”, Policy Sciences, 28(3), pp. 243-270.

Shibuya, K., C. Ciecierski, E. Guindon y D. Bettcher (2003), “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: Development of an Evidence Based Global Public Health Treaty”, BMJ, 327, pp. 154-157.

Weible, C.M. (2005), “Beliefs and Policy Influence: An Advocacy Coalition Approach to Policy Networks”, Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), pp. 461-477.

Weible, C.M. (2007), “An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach to Stakeholder Analysis: Understanding the Political Context of California Marine Protected Area Policy”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), pp. 95-117.

Weible, C.M., P.A. Sabatier y K. McQueen (2009), “Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework”, Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), pp. 121-140.

Weible, C.M., P.A. Sabatier, H.C. Jenkins-Smith, D. Nohrstedt, A.D. Henry y P. Deleon (2011), “A Quarter Century of the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Introduction to the Special Issue”, Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), pp. 349-360.

Yach, D. y D. Bettcher (2000), “Globalisation of Tobacco industry Influence and New Global Responses”, Tobacco Control, 9(2), pp. 206-216.

Yacuzzi, E. (2005), “El estudio de caso como metodología de investigación: Teoría, mecanismos causales, validación”, Serie Documentos de Trabajo, 296.

Downloads

Published

2020-07-01
Metrics
Views/Downloads
  • Abstract
    182
  • PDF (Español)
    145

How to Cite

Guajardo Mendoza, Miguel Adolfo, and José Ramón Gil-García. 2020. “Advocacy Coalitions, External Perturbations and Policy Changes: Understanding the Intensity of Tobacco Control Policy in Spain, Mexico and Uruguay”. Gestión Y Política Pública 29 (2):477-501. https://doi.org/10.29265/gypp.v29i2.781.

Issue

Vol. 29 No. 2 (2020)

Section

Posiciones e Ideas (Positions and Ideas).

Metrics