Literature DB >> 25863723

Best of enemies: Using social network analysis to explore a policy network in European smoke-free policy.

Heide Weishaar1, Amanda Amos2, Jeff Collin3.   

Abstract

Networks and coalitions of stakeholders play a crucial role in the development and implementation of policies, with previous research highlighting that networks in tobacco control are characterised by an antagonism between supporters and opponents of comprehensive tobacco control policies. This UK-based study used quantitative and qualitative network analysis (drawing on 176 policy submissions and 32 interviews) to systematically map and analyse a network of actors involved in the development of European Union (EU) smoke-free policy. Policy debates were dominated by two coalitions of stakeholders with starkly opposing positions on the issue. One coalition, consisting primarily of health-related organisations, supported comprehensive EU smoke-free policy, whereas the other, led by tobacco manufacturers' organisations, opposed the policy initiative. The data suggest that, aided by strong political commitment of EU decision makers to develop smoke-free policy, advocates supporting comprehensive EU policy were able to frame policy debates in ways which challenged the tobacco industry's legitimacy. They then benefited from the stark polarisation between the two coalitions. The paper provides empirical evidence of the division between two distinct coalitions in tobacco policy debates and draws attention to the complex processes of consensus-seeking, alliance-building and strategic action which are integral to the development of EU policy. Highlighting network polarisation and industry isolation as factors which seemed to increase tobacco control success, the study demonstrates the potential significance and value of FCTC article 5.3 for tobacco control policy-making.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Advocacy; European Union; European policymaking; FCTC article 5.3; Policy network; Smoke-free policy; Social network analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25863723     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  9 in total

1.  An Examination of Two Policy Networks Involved in Advancing Smokefree Policy Initiatives.

Authors:  Sarah Moreland-Russell; Bobbi J Carothers
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 3.390

2.  Unpacking commercial sector opposition to European smoke-free policy: lack of unity, 'fear of association' and harm reduction debates.

Authors:  Heide Weishaar; Amanda Amos; Jeff Collin
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2015-06-08       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 3.  Mapping discourse coalitions in the minimum unit pricing for alcohol debate: a discourse network analysis of UK newspaper coverage.

Authors:  Gillian Fergie; Philip Leifeld; Ben Hawkins; Shona Hilton
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 6.526

4.  The case for developing a cohesive systems approach to research across unhealthy commodity industries.

Authors:  Cécile Knai; Mark Petticrew; Simon Capewell; Rebecca Cassidy; Jeff Collin; Steven Cummins; Elizabeth Eastmure; Patrick Fafard; Niamh Fitzgerald; Anna B Gilmore; Ben Hawkins; Jørgen Dejgård Jensen; Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi; Nason Maani; Nicholas Mays; Modi Mwatsama; Rima Nakkash; Jim F Orford; Harry Rutter; Natalie Savona; May C I van Schalkwyk; Heide Weishaar
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2021-02

5.  Evidence use in E-cigarettes debates: scientific showdowns in a 'wild west' of research.

Authors:  Katherine E Smith; Theresa Ikegwuonu; Heide Weishaar; Shona Hilton
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 4.135

6.  Who thinks what about e-cigarette regulation? A content analysis of UK newspapers.

Authors:  Chris Patterson; Shona Hilton; Heide Weishaar
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2016-03-11       Impact factor: 6.526

Review 7.  Why media representations of corporations matter for public health policy: a scoping review.

Authors:  Heide Weishaar; Lori Dorfman; Nicholas Freudenberg; Benjamin Hawkins; Katherine Smith; Oliver Razum; Shona Hilton
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  Who Are the Key Players Involved with Shaping Public Opinion and Policies on Obesity and Diabetes in New Zealand?

Authors:  Willemijn E de Bruin; Cherie Stayner; Michel de Lange; Rachael W Taylor
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2018-10-30       Impact factor: 5.717

9.  Needs of LMIC-based tobacco control advocates to counter tobacco industry policy interference: insights from semi-structured interviews.

Authors:  Britta Katharina Matthes; Lindsay Robertson; Anna B Gilmore
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 2.692

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.