An
Analysis of Multiple Stream Theory and Advocacy Coalition Framework: Policy
Change and Australian Plain Packaging Policy
Introduction
Policy making is an
intricate process. It is featured by clash and consent to get a policy changed.
Policy makers contest for time, phases,
attention, responsiveness and funds to bring issues to the government strategy. Policy change is incremental, excluding those times when ‘major shifts occur’
( True 2000; cited in Hayes 2008, 1). The
‘challenges’ to scholars is to clarify‘how policy changes over time’(Heck 2004,
cited in Hayes 2008, 1).
To understand how
policy changes we have taken Australia’s ‘Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011’
as a case study .The Multiple
Stream Theory (MST) and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) have been used
as tools to understand how Plain Packaging policy came
into reality after overcoming challenges.
In this paper I have
introduced the case study with a brief recent history, discussed Multiple
Stream Theory(MST) and convergence of its three streams in terms of plain
packaging policy, presented Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and its application
in our Australian case. A good number of available journal articles ,relevant
news reports and research works were studied which, really, were of great
assistance to complete this essay.
Case
Study: Tobacco control policy and ‘Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011’
Since
tobacco products are distinctive among customer items causing early demise of
so many people, Australian government found it be ‘unethical to encourage use
of tobacco’ and move for legislation to stop all kinds of campaign to make
Australia the ‘healthiest country by the
year 2020’ (CCV 2011,5). It was a far-reaching idea of tobacco control which
received overwhelming support from health groups.
The
cases validatedthe formulation of law to reduce the rate of smoking. It
was thought that using ‘olive green
packets with pictures of diseased gums
or blinded eyes’ and increased health
warning on the front of packets with
larger font size reduce particularly smoking by youths(Thomson 2011,1).
Policy
activists though that stronger federal legislation would be required for
true policy change. So the experts described the idea as the most
important national development in tobacco control (Sweet 2010, 1) and commented that it was
‘difficult to exaggerate the importance’ of such policy
reform(Casben 2010; 1).
According to ‘Tobacco
Plain Packaging Act 2011’,from
December 2012 all cigarettes legally retailed in Australia have been mandatory
to be packaged in designated standardized packets (Davidson &Silva 2014,
1). In Australia this is popularly known as the ‘plain packaging’ policy.
Recent
History of Plain packaging
In 1992 Australian
Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy gave new warnings and asks for a report on
plain packaging. In 1995
advisor to (then) Australian health minister Carmen Lawrence discards
the notion of plain packaging, mentioning need to search international trade
and legal concerns( Chapman et al 2012,2).
After long period, in2007, a panel of researchers including Becky
Freeman, Simon Chapman & Matthew Rimmer circulated the idea of ‘Plain
Packaging of Tobacco Products’ on the Social Sciences Research Network. After
that, in 2008, Health Minister Nicola Roxon declared formation of Preventative
Health Taskforce. On 30 June 2009, Preventative Health Taskforce submitted
final report to Government for consideration (Chapmanet al 2012, 3).
In
April 2010 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared plain packaging to be legislated (Chapman
et al 2012, 7). In April 2011, Minister Nichola Roxon submitted an ‘exposure
draft’ of plain packaging bill with a probable start date of 1 July 2012).It
was noted that the Opposition resistance to the bill was for their ongoing
receipt of aids from tobacco companies
(Andrea 2011, 1).
On 31 May 2011 Tony Abbott, the then Liberal leader
(Presently Prime Minister) declared that his party would support the bill, and
work with the government to guarantee the legislation is in effect (Ben 2011,
1).
Minister Roxon presented the plain packaging bill to Parliament
on 6 July 2011( ABC News 2011a ).It was
passed through the Lower House on 24 August 2011( ABC News
2011b).The senate passed legislation
on 10 November 2011 with the amended start date of 1 December 2012(APH2011)
because of the changed start date the
legislation reverted to the Lower House before
giving royal approval (ABC News
2011c). It was finally passed on 21 November 2011(ABC news
2011d).
The
Multiple Streams Theory
The MST
model traces back to 1984 when
John Kingdon wrote the book titled ‘Agendas, Alternatives
and Public Policies’ (Maricut 2011,3; John 2003, 487).It accepts that policy making is ‘dynamic,
irrational, and unpredictable’ ( Nutley, Walter and Davis 2007; cited in Chow
2014,52) and surrounding environment is always ambiguous and complex (Pollit
2008,127).The core of the MST lies within three streams designated by Kingdon
(1995): the problem stream, the policy stream and politics stream.
The
problem stream refers to the problems
that draw everyone’s attention including
the government ( Chow 2014 ,52; Perche 2015, Lecture 10)and involves the
indicators that ‘support the existence of a problem’ (Howie 2009, 1).The policy
stream is defined as a ‘policy primeval
soup’ ( Kingdon 1995,116) in which policy notions and solutions are framed,
improved, rejected and accepted( Chow 2014,52). The politics stream denotes
‘public opinion, election results and demands of interest group’ (Chow 2014, 52).
Kingdon(1995,20)
maintains that when these three streams get together at a crucial moments, they
are likely make a policy window; and clarifies that when this window unlocks,
the issue turns to be a part of policy agenda and policy making steps proceed.
The link
of streams becomes firm by the ‘presence of policy windows and the actions of
policy entrepreneurs’ (Chow 2014, 52). Policy entrepreneurs are actors who familiarize
and support their ideas on variouscircumstances, spendingtime and energy to
escalate their chances of getting an idea involved on the ‘decision making agenda’(
Kingdon, 1995; cited in Chow 2014,520). They
are dynamic in both the problem stream and policy stream, and they need
to act when the ‘policy window opens’ ( Zahariadis 2007, cited in Chow
2014,52).
Convergence of the Three Streams to
Change: Plain Packaging Policy
With the
help of MST framework, we endeavor to explain how the said policy came to be
identified as a problem considering the proposals for policy solution in the
existing socio- political environment. At the end of this section I like to
discuss the probable merging of the streams as well as the concept of ‘policy
windows’ and ‘policy entrepreneurs’.
The Problem Stream
The
problem stream refers to the problem that needs
attention and action from the government ( Kingdon 2003, 1980). These
may come to government’s attention through feedback on current policy programs
highlighting on ‘events like crises or strong indicators, such as statistics’ (Kingdon
1984, 20; cited in Chow 2014,55).
Feedback on current program: In case of drawing government
attention, researchers played a vital role. With the increasing ban on tobacco advertising
worldwide the package has become the main advertising ‘vehicle’ for reaching
cigarette smokers ( Weeks 2006, Cork 2004 ; cited in CCV 2011,6).
A study conducted by Wakefield, Germaine and Durkin(2008, 420) proposed plain packaging
‘as a means to limit brand imagery’. They found that ‘plain packs with
increasingly fewer brand design elements are perceived increasingly unfavorably
in terms of smokers appraisals of the packs’. Theses feedbacks from researchers
attracted government attention and force the government to regulate tobacco
advertisement through Plain packaging policy.
Focusing events: The AMAand Centre for Behavioral Research in
Cancer pushed the government to consider report findings about the impact of
plain packaging.(Chapman et al 2012, 2).
Again, when parties to the
WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco
Control(2008) adopted guidelines on advertising and package labeling and
recommended the use of plain packaging , it attracted further attention of the
Australian government to this policy problem.
The Policy Stream
The policy
stream holds all prospective solutions to the problems offered by policy
experts such as bureaucrats, analysts, researchers and politician (Howie 2009,
1; Chow 2014,56). Kingdon (1995,2003) explained all policy options as floating
in a ‘ primeval policy soup’, which are
waiting to be selected. Policy experts
cluster them together and, finally the most viable options come on the agenda
(Chow 2014, 56).
In our case,
the people demand is clear and most of them wanted to get plain packaging
implement in Australia( Chapman et al 2012). This makes sense to all experts
that they have a lot to do with the policy proposal which will directly affect
the existing population and next generation.
According to Professor Daube ( 2011,
cited in Thompson 2011, 1), the president of the Australian Council on Smoking
and Health, there is a great deal of proof presenting that ‘glossy packs are
appealing, they appeal especially to kids’. He delivered a strong motivation to
consider rules and regulations aimed at reducing rate of smoking; and
ultimately reducing mortality.
Another
Study sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council 2011explored
the question of whether eliminating the color and design of packets more effective
in decreasing the appeal of brands (Wakefiled et al 2011, cited in CCV 2011, 15).This
study found that once packs were plain, increasing size of the front of pack
health warnings from 30% to 70% or did not further reduce brand appeal. But other research showed that plain
packaging was much more effective than increasing the size of health warnings
in reducing the appeal of the brand (CCV 2011,15).
Again, a
study conducted by Quit Victoria and Cancer Council of Victoria in 2011
included the results of 24 Published experimental studies that examined the
likely impact of plain packaging on youths and current smokers (CCV 2011, 3)
which further motivated the government to continue with the policy.
The Politics Stream
The
politics stream comprises issues such as national mood, administrative or
legislative costs, elections and pressure group movement ( Kingdon 1995,21). Policymakers
needto ‘pay attention to the problem and be receptive to the proposed solution’
and may complement their own opinions
with their insight of the ‘national mood’ and the ‘feedback’ they get from
political parties and other relevant interest groups (Carney 2013, 1).
National Mood
Australia’s
competitive advantage is in its democracy and political stability and the
national mood is linked to these. The national mood turned towards the
legislation of ‘Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011’ because its effect is
perceived as positive for present and future generation. Therefore,‘anti- plain
packaging’ campaign by the tobacco companies was tackled by ‘pro-plain
packaging’ campaign by heath groups(Chapman et al 2012) .
Election
The Rudd
government unveiled the plan on 29 April 2010 on the eve of national election
because the Government wanted to keep the political debate on this health issue
(Emma 2010, 1). Though The Greens, Family First and
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon
supported for plain packaging, the Opposition kept initially ‘its options open on whether
it will support plain packaging’, but
condemned Mr Rudd for ‘trying to create a political distraction’( Emma
2010,2).
Policy Windows, Policy
Entrepreneurs and Convergence Process
Policy entrepreneurs try to combine the three streams and put
onward their agenda to policy makers (Kingdon 1995, cited Chow 2014,57) to make
a change in policy. Though there are evidence that government act as policy entrepreneurs
(Young, Shepley and Song 2010, cited in Chow 2014, 57), in our case both the
medical scholars and the Preventative Health Taskforce acted as policy
entrepreneurs who worked jointly to merge all the three streams successfully.
Medical scholars under the banner of Australian Medical
Association and Cancer Council of Australia and Preventative Health Taskforce
had gone through the process of government attention in the problem stream by
releasing results of research which ultimately increasedpublic support( Chapman
et al 2012,12). They succeeded to merge all the streams when the policy window
was opened because people supported the policy after release of research
result.( Chapman 2012, 12).Figure 1 summarizes the policy change process in our
case.
Figure1: Multiple stream and Plain Packaging policy in
Australia
 |
Strengths of MST:
Kingdon’s
MST is an enriched form of the Garbage
Can Model of organizational choices developed
by Cohen, March,
and Olsen in
1972 (Parsons 1995, 192cited in Chow 2014, 52-53). This model
wasframed for a pluralist background with many actors, aims, and outlooks, and
it contributed to theelementary understanding of how decisions are taken in a
confusingsituation (Turpin & Marais, 2004; cited Chow 2014, 53). The MSToutspreads this idea to the state
level and clarifies
how and why ‘certain policy
issues move onto a government’s
agenda while others do not’ (Sabatier, 1999; cited in Chow 2014, 53 ).
The theory
clarified the process of policy change that adjusted some features of
rationalism; while discarding the outdated ‘problem-solving and incremental
models of policy formation’ (Chow 2014, 53).
In addition
to giving an substitute framework
that can accommodate
‘ambiguity in the
policymaking process’ (John 1998, 173),
the goal of MST is to scrutinize three
issues: ‘a) how policymakers’ attention is captured; b)
how problems are formed; and c) the problem-solution matching process’ ( Chow
2014, 53).
Weaknesses of MST
Kingdondid
not attempt to test the theory outside the USA (Sabatier, 1999). In its present
form, the MST is not comprehensively ready to ‘accommodate Eastern politics’ (
Chow2014, 53) .Critically, the political background USA varies from that in
the other parts of the world including Australia due todissimilarities in
culture, history, and
political thought.
Further,
the MST did not necessarilyadmit the importance of media effects, including the
social media (Stout & Stevens 2000, cited in Chow 2014, 53). This is unsafe forthe MST because policy
entrepreneurs may ‘manipulate stream development’ by cautiouslyhandling the
media (Shanahan, McBeth, Hathaway, &Arnell, 2008 cited in Chow 2014, 53).
More recent
pointscounter to the MSF are whether the streams remainreally independent or
not (Sabatier, 1999; cited in Chow 2014, 53). This is tough to confirm, given
the ever -shifting and ‘ambiguous nature of reality’ (Robinson & Eller
2010; cited in Chow 2014, 53).
The Advocacy Coalition Framework and
Plain Packaging Policy
The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)
was developed by Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith in 1988. It is ‘best served
as lens to understand and explain belief and policy change’ when there is
conflict between different actors of certain levels of government, interest
groups, research organizations orthe media (Hoppe and Peterse 1993, cited in
Weible and Sabatier2007 ,123) Supporters of this theory believe that ‘policy
change happens through coordinated activity among individuals with the same
core policy beliefs’ ( Stachowiak 2013,9
).
We need to explain the components in
ACF flow diagram (Figure 2) and then analyze how these components affect policy
change. Now we are going to use our case study ‘Plain Packaging Policy’ where
ACF will be applied to understand how policy changes.
Structure of the ACF:
Figure2: Diagram of the Advocacy
Coalition Framework (Source: Sabatier and Jenkins- Smith,1999; Weible and
Sabatier 2007,124)
Usually, policy making happens in a
policy subsystem, which is ‘a policy area that is geographically bounded and
encompasses policy participants’ from all stagesof state and non- state actors
(Weible& Sabatier 2007,124-25). Within a policy subsystem policy actors ‘coordinate
behavior with allies in advocacy coalitions to influence policy’ (Weible&
Sabatier 2007, 25).
The policy subsystems are fixed
within and affected by wider social perspectives;and the ACF clusters the wide
societal situations into two groups:‘relatively stable parameters and external events’
(Weible& Sabatier 2007). In the pages below, we are going to discuss the
three main components of Figure 1. First we explain ‘the relatively stable parameters’
then describe policy subsystems and finally illustrate external events briefly.
Table 1: Summary of the Application
of ACF to ‘Plain Packaging’
ACF Components
|
Plain Packaging of Tobacco
Products
|
Relatively Stable parameters
Basic Attribute of the Problem
Area
Basic distribution of natural
resources
Fundamental cultural values and social
structure
Basic Constitutional Structure
|
Health hazard due to smoking
Taxation on tobacco, donation to
political parties by tobacco companies
Health cautious and demand for
plain packaging
Federalism, independent judiciary,
Westminster system of responsible government, Bicameral parliament
|
Policy Subsystem
Territorial scope
Substantial Scope
Policy Participants
|
Entire Australia
Tobacco control policy
Commonwealth Government, The
Parliament,Opposition Parties, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Law and
Justice, Department of Health, Cancer Council of Australia, Cancer Council of
Victoria, Tobacco Companies, The High Court, Retailers Association, Medical
Professors, Research Institutes, Preventative Health Taskforce, Senate
Committees, mass media, people
|
Belief System
Deep Core Beliefs
Policy Core Beliefs
Secondary Beliefs
|
Neo socio-cultural beliefs ,
Pro-plain packaging beliefs and
anti –plain packaging beliefs
Specific policy proposals
recommending plain packaging
|
Advocacy Coalitions
|
Pro-plain packaging Vs Anti –plain
packaging coalitions
|
Policy Broker
|
The Opposition Party Leader , who
primary criticized the policy but finally came to support the government (though
not active as desired) , The High Court
|
Resources
|
Research information
|
Venues
|
Cancer Council Australia, High
Court, Federal Legislature, Federal Government Decision, State –run Media
like ABC News
|
Mechanisms of Policy Change
Accumulation of Evidence
Hurting Stalemate
External Shock
|
Research findings showing the
positive effects of plain packaging
The conflict between the health
organizations and tobacco industries
Growth of people’s demand for
plain packaging after publication of Health Taskforce’s report
|
(Note:Based on Sabatier et al
2003,Weible&Sabatier 2004,Weible &Sabatier 2007, 125)
Relatively Stable Parameters
The upper left box of Figure 1 shows four relatively stable
parameters (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999, cited in Weible and Sabatier 2007,
125); which are steady over long span of time, build the ‘nature of the
problem’, develop the rules and processes for changing policy and extensively
form the values that notify policy makers (Weible and Sabatier 2007, 125).
In the ‘Plain Packaging’ context the
basic attribute of the problem is persisting health hazard due to smoking,
particularly among the young people who are easily attracted by the glossy
cigarette packets(Thomson 2011,1) The second parameter is concerned with the
taxation policy on tobacco which had been a major source of revenue for the
government and donation given the tobacco companies to political parties to get
policy supports (Andrea 2011, 1).
The third parameter is concerned with diverse socio-cultural
setting of Australia with strong cultural valueswhere most people were in favor
of plain packaging. Here there is clash between the individual rights and the
social interest.
The fourth parameter refers to constitutional structure of
Australia and it is featured by federalism, independent judiciary, Westminster
system of responsible government andbicameral parliament (The Australian
Constitution, 1900). In the ‘plain packaging’ policy issue all these organs
were active but took much time to come to an ultimate decision.
Policy Subsystem
A policy subsystem is defined by its territorial limit, a
fundamental issue and by numerous policy participants from different levels of
government, diverse interest groups, media and research organizations( Weible
and Sabtier 2007, 126). To affect policy, policy participants continue their
contribution over long period of time to confirm their goals are achieved (
Sabatier and Jenkin-Smith1993;Cited in Weible and Sabatier 2007,126).
For the ‘PlainPackaging’ issue involves a large number of policy
participants who try to influence the decision. The policy participants include
the Commonwealth Government, The Parliament, Opposition Parties, Ministry of
Health, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Health, Cancer Council of
Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria , National Health and Medical Research
Council ,the High Court, Preventative Health Taskforce, tobacco companies,
retailers associations, medical professors, research institutes, , senate
committees, media and common people.
Model of the Individual
The ACF assumes that individuals are
reasonably inspired but are ‘bounded by their imperfect ability’ to study about
aintricate world of policymaking (
Simon 1985;cited in Weible and Sabatier 2007).They tend to ‘filter or ignore
information’ that encounters their beliefs and readily receiveevidences that strengthen
their beliefs(Weible and Sabatier 2007, 127).
The ACF adopts that individuals have
three-tiered belief system. On the top tier aredeep core beliefs which
are ‘normative/fundamental beliefs that span multiple policy systems and are
very resistant to change’ (Weible and Sabatier 2007,127).
In the middle tier are policy core beliefs which are of ‘moderate
scope’ ( Weible,Sabatier & McQueen 2009, 122 ) They are ‘empirical beliefs’ that span a
whole policy process ; are ‘resistant to
change’ but more flexible than deep core beliefs(Weible and Sabatier
2007, 127).
At the last tier are secondary
beliefs which are more ‘narrow in scope’, and more ‘empirically
based’ compared to policy core
beliefs (Weible,Sabatier & McQueen 2009, 123). The ACF forecasts that
secondary beliefs are the most probable to ‘change over time’ compared to
policy core or deep core beliefs (Weible,Sabatier & McQueen 2009, 123).
Secondary beliefs comprise policy participants’ likings for ‘specific
government tools’ for reaching goals (Weible and Sabatier 2007,128).
Advocacy Coalitions
The victory of policy participants
depends on their capacity to convert their policy core beliefs into real
policy. To increase their probabilities for success, policy participants try to
find out partners with same policy core beliefs and coordinate their activities
with these partners in advocacy coalitions (Weible and Sabatier2007,128).Hence
, advocacy coalitions consist of‘policy participants that both (1)share similar
policy core beliefs and (2)engage in nontrivial degree of coordination’(
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999,;cited in Weible and Sabatier 2007,128).
In ‘Plain Packaging’ policy of we
get evidence of mainly two advocacy coalitions. One coalition is a ‘Pro-Plain
Packs’ coalition and the other is ‘Anti-Plain Packs’ coalition (Chapman et al
2012, 6). The ‘Pro-Plain Packs’ coalition consists of Cancer Council of
Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria, Medical Professors, Action on Smoking
and Health(Australia) , National Health and Medical Research Council,
Preventative health Taskforce, and different
‘Health Groups’ working active in Australia ( Chapman et al 2012, 6) . Whereas,
the ‘Anti- Plain Packs’ coalitionconsists of British American Tobacco, Philip
Morris, Imperial Tobacco, Alliance of Australian Retailers and Institute of
Public Affairs ,a right wing ‘think-tank’( Chapman et al 2012,6).
We see that these two coalitions vie
for long more than a decade to establish their respective policy core beliefs
into actual policy and finally the ‘Pro-Plain Packs’ wins to influence the
government and the parliamentlegislate ‘The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011’.
Policy Brokers
In competitive policy subsystems,
policy differences between advocacy coalitions are ‘mediated’ by policy brokers
to find rational ‘compromise among hostile coalitions’ (Weible and Sabatier 2007,
128). Policies brokers are generally trustworthy to both coalitions and have
some decision making power ( Weible and Sabatier 2007,128).
In our context, the High Court of
Australia can be considered as the Policy Broker because the on10
Nov 2011 British American Tobacco
confirmed proceedings in the High Court challenging the law and on Dec 2011
Imperial Tobacco initiated proceedings in Australia's High Court to test the
validity of the law (Chapman 2012, 15), though the writs were discarded by the
court finally.
Venues
Venues
are prospective ‘arenas’ within which participants have the chance to influence
policy; and participants spend much time searching for an ‘arena’ where they
have ‘competitive advantage’ (Weible and Sabatier 2007, 129). For instance, in
our case, the tobacco companies tried to influence view of decision makers
primarily through the legislature(particularly Oppositionparty by giving ‘donation’)
(Andrea 2011, 1) and finally though the High Court through writ petitions (Chapman
et al 2012, 15).
Mechanisms of Policy Change
The ACF identifies three mechanisms of policy change, either
it is major or minor: (1) external shocks, (2) hurting stalemate, and (3)
accumulation of scientific and technological evidence via policy oriented
learning (Sabatier and Jenkins- Smith 1999, cited in Weible and Sabatier 2007,
130). However, Policy change mostly happens due to ‘external shocks’ and ‘policy -oriented learning’ ( Perche
2015, Lecture 10).
External shocks consist of extensive changes in socioeconomic backgrounds,
public belief, ‘governing coalitions’ and new subsystems which may bring change
in a subsystem by flowing and increasing funds, inclining the influence and
authority of coalitions, and ‘changing beliefs’ (Weible,Sabatier & McQueen
2009, 123).
Policy-oriented
learning is defined
as comparatively continuing changes of ‘thought’ that come from ‘experience
and/or new information’ and that are concerned with the achievement or
modification of policy goals (Sabatier & Jenkins- Smith, 1999, p. 123;
cited in Weible,Sabatier & McQueen 2009, 123).Here the role of experts
/practitioners is prevalent, influence of new scientific knowledge is mostly
evident and always think where experts
group and professionals would fit in( Perche 2015, Lecture 10).
In our
case, we see from Hammond’s (2010, cited in CCV 2011, 13) review of evidence that provided new
information. It presented that there
are three fundamental benefits of plain packaging: growing success of health cautions,
decreasing false views about cigarettes and falling brand appeal exclusively
among youths(CCV 2011, 13).
Further, the plain packaging were among the recommendations of the Preventative Health Taskforce, which handed over its findings to the government in September 2010 ( Emma 2010, 1 which enriched policy- oriented learning in the case of plain packaging policy.
We have seen that ACF has given a
‘good lens’ to understand belief and policy change of tobacco plain packaging
in Australia. To review the usefulness of ACF we conclude this section with an
analysis of its strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths
1. The ACF is ‘healthy alternative’
to the phases of ‘heuristic’ because it has causal suppositions, empirically
testable proposition, an explicit role of information, an clear model of
individual, and ‘multiple interaction cycle involving hundreds of
actors’(Sabatier and Jenkins- Smith 1993;Cited in Weible& Sabatier
2007,131-32).
2. It is a ‘good comparative lens’ (Ostrom
1999; cited in Weible& Sabatier)and highlights the extent and feature of ‘political conflict’( Weible&Sabatier
2007, 132) . The ACF reveals feeble links in a belief system that
is vulnerable over long period of time to change from the ‘accumulation of
counterevidence’, which may help coalitions and policy brokers tactically attain
their objectives or negotiate combined‘decisions’ (Wieble& Sabatier 2007,
132).
3. The ACF inspires academics to
observe policy making as ‘conflicts among advocacy coalitions’ and gives a new
means of gathering the ‘hundreds of actors’ trying to change policy
(Weible& Sabatier 2007,132). Ithas a
substantial role of scientific and technical information in policy and political
disagreements ( Weible& Sabatier 2007,132)
and appropriate to ‘different
governing structure, cultural –societies, and policy areas’( Weible&
Sabatier 2007, 132).
Weaknesses
1. The ACF is difficult to apply
because it takes more than a decade to understand political conflict and policy
change and usually ‘involves questionnaire and interview data’ which is both
‘time-consuming and costly’ ( Weible&Sabatier 2007,132).
2. It losses certain
utility in policy subsystems when there is no clear coalitions( May 1989 ; Cited
in Weible and Sabatier 2007,132) or in the case of only one leading advocacy
coalition( Stewart 1991;cited in Weible and Sabatier 2007,132).
3. Further , the shared
beliefs in ACF are not sufficient to
overcome the lure of ‘free ride’ on the works of other ‘coalition members’ (Schlager
and Blomquist 1995; cited in Weible and Sabtier 2007,132); and cannot determine
the minimum degree of coordinated behavior needed to clarify coalitions, nor
even the effect of cross –coalition conversations on policy subsystem
consequences (Weible and Sabatier 2015, 132).
Who are most responsible?
From the analysis above we come to know that in ‘plain packaging’
case the most important actors of policy change were health professionals and
researchers who substantiated the change by motivating the government,
involving media and building people consensus in favor of plain packaging. On
the contrary, the other important actors were tobacco companies who acted as a
pressure group and kept threatening the government that they would take the
issue to the High Court; but failed finally. However, in every stage the
government had the key position to decide and all other actors moved around it.
Conclusion:
Change is a keyportion
of our lives, whether it is change in businesses, health care or social policies; and sometimes
major shocks are required to bring about a change (Cerna 2013, 3). It is
composed of beliefs and priorities of policy actors from multiple
socio-political sectors. Issues like plain packaging and theories like the MST and
the ACF would remain open to analyze further to see how policy changes.
Bibliography:
Adina Maricuţ( 2011 ) To what extent can the multiple streams
model be used to explain policy-making at the EU level?,Department of
Politics ,University of York
Anthony Chow (2014) ‘Understanding
Policy Change: Multiple Streams and National Curriculum Policy in Hong Kong’, Journal of Public Administration and
Governance, 4(2),49-64
Becky
Freeman, Simon Chapman & Matthew Rimmer
(2009) The case for the plain packaging of
tobacco products ,viewed 7 June 2015, < http://
www.acosh.org./resources/ Generic packaing.pdf>
Ben
Packham (2011) ‘Abbott
out of puff on plain packet laws’
The Australian, 1 June, viewed 10 June
2015, < http:// www.theaustralian.com.au/ national-
affairs/abbot/…plain-cigarette- packet-laws/story>
Christopher M Weible&Paul A
Sabatier ( 2009) ‘Themes and Variations:
Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework’,The Policy Studies Journal, 37(4),
121-40
Cancer Council of Victoria (2011) Plain Packaging of tobacco products: a
review of evidence, viewed 6 June 2015,<http://www.cancer.org.au/…Cancer
Control policy/…/Tobacco>.
Christopher M Weible, Paul A
Sabatier and Kelly McQueen (2009) “Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the
Advocacy Coalition Framework” The Policy Studies Journal 37(1)
121-40
Chapman et al
(2012)
Plain Tobacco Packaging In
Australia: A time-line of significant events and news media coverage, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, viewed <http://tobacco.cleartheair.org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Time-line.pdf
Christopher M.
Weible& Paul A. Sabatier (2007) “A Guide to Advocacy Coalition Framework”
in Frank Fischer et al (ed) Handbook of
Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods ,CRC Press
David
Hammond (2009),Tobacco labeling and
packaging toolkit: a guide to FCTC
, viewed 7June,<http://www.cofemer.gob.mx/expediente/tobacco
packaging/ Labeling/-pdf>
David
Rochefort& Roger W Cobb (1995) The Politics of Problem Definition:
shaping the policy agenda, University of Kansas Press
Diana
Perche ( 2015 ) Lecture
10 audio, PowerPoint Slides,
Macquarie University, viewed &
listened 7June ,2015
Hayward
Andrea (2011) ‘Cigarettes Likely to
get plain packages’ ,The Sydney Morning Herald
,24 May, viewed 10 June 2015, <http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/cigarettes-likely-to-get-plain-packages-20110524-1f193.html,>
Jeremy Thompson ( 2011) "Cigarette rethink: Logos out, death and disease in", ABC News, viewed 9 June 2015,<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-07/cigarette-rethink-logos-out-death-and-disease-in/2626702>
Jane E. Hayes
(2008) An Examination of Advocacy
Coalition Framework and the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: A case Study of MI
Public Act 61 0f 2004, A dissertation submitted to Michigan State
University, UMI No:3348117, viewed 12 June 2015, <http://books.google.com.au/book>
John W Kingdon
(2003) “Problems” in Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nded,
Longman, New York .
Kate Hagan
& Dan Harrison (2012) , Plain packs
'put off' smokers,The Age, 30
November, viewed 9 June 2015,<http://www.theage.com.au/national/plain-packs-put-off-smokers-20121129-2aitp.html>
Lucie Cerner (2013) The Nature of Policy Change and
Implementation: A Review of Different
Theoretical Approaches, OECD, viewed June112015, <http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/....Change%20and%20Implementation.pdf>
M A Wakefield, D
Germain& S J Durkin( 2008) ‘‘How does increasingly plainer cigarette
packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An
experimental study’’, Tobacco Control200817:
416–421
M Sweet (2010) Plain tobacco packs ‘draconian’ or a massive
wins for public health? , viewed 9 June 2015,<http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2010/04/29/plain‐tobacco‐packs‐draconian‐or‐a‐massive‐win‐for‐public‐health/#comments >
Nicola Roxon (2011),Exposure Draft, Plain Packaging
Bill,
viewed 10/06/2015 <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/website-decommissioned-yourhealth>
Nicola Roxon(2011),Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011, viewed 6 June 2015,
< http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlinfo/search/display/...legislation>
Paul Carney(2013)Policy
Concepts in 1000 Words: Multiple Streams Analysis, viewed 9 June 2015,<http://paulcarney.wordpress.com.../policy-concepts
/.../multiple stream analysis>
Peter John
(2003) “Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions and
punctuations?”,Policy Studies Journal 31(4) 481-498
Paul Cairney
(2013) “Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple
theories in public policy studies?”,Policy Studies Journal 41(1)
1-21
RAW Rhodes
(2006) “Policy Network Analysis” in Michael Moran, Martin Rein and Robert E
Goodin (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, OUP
Rachel Wells (2012 )"Does this color turn you off?" , The Age, 17 August,
viewed 9 June 2015,<http://www.theage.com.au/national/does-this-colour-turn-you-off-20120816-24bf4.html>
Rodgers Emma ( 2010) "Cigarette tax to increase 25pc from midnight",ABC News, 29 April 2010, viewed 8 June 2015,<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-29/cigarette-tax-to-increase-25pc-from-midnight/415056>
"Roxon
Introduces Plain Packaging Bill",
ABC News, 6 July 2011, viewed 10 June
2015,<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-06/roxon-introduces-plain-packaging-bill/2784492>
‘Plain packaging
legislation passes Lower House’,ABC News,
24 August 2011, viewed 10 June 2015,<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-24/plain-packaging-legislation-passes-parliament/2854434>
“Cigarette packaging legislation
passes Senate”,ABC News , 10 November 2011 ,viewed 10 June 2015, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-10/plain-packaging-legislation-passes-senate/3658840
>
“Cigarette plain packaging laws pass
Parliament”,ABC News 21 November 2011, viewed 10 June2015,<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-21/cig-plain-packaging-laws-pass/3684374>
Casben L (2010) ‘Tobacco
Companies rally against plain packaging’,ABC
News, Sydney 2010:29 April, viewed 10 June 2015, < http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/29/2885343.htm?section=business>
"Government to demand no frills cigarette packets", ABC News, 29 April 2010 , viewed 10 June 2015,<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-28/government-to-demand-no-frills-cigarette-packets/414364>
Sinclair
Davidson&Ashton de Silva (2014)The
Plain Truth about Plain Packaging:An Econometric Analysis of the Australian 2011
Tobacco Plain Packaging Act , viewed 11 June 2015,< http://press.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm>
The research work was done at Macquarie University, Australia, in 2015.
S M Mehedi Hasan Upazila Nirbahi Officer
Kishoreganj, Nilphamari smmehedi36@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment