Advertisement

Discussion and Conclusion

  • Benjamin HawkinsEmail author
  • Chris Holden
  • Sophie Mackinder
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Public Health Policy Research book series (PSPHPR)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the study findings in light of relevant theory on policy transfer and multi-level governance. Three theoretical conclusions are made: (1) public health policies today are often subject to a policy transfer ‘web’, in which networks of actors involving both policy-makers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are required to navigate various different jurisdictions and levels of governance in order to ensure that a policy is successfully adopted; (2) transnational corporations have analytically-significant consequences for policy transfer processes and may act intentionally to disrupt such processes; and (3) the activities of transnational corporate actors can shape subsequent transfer processes, as policy-makers and NGOs build relationships and coalitions in an effort to adapt to, and counteract, global corporate political strategies.

Keywords

Policy transfer Multi-level governance Transnational tobacco companies Standardised packaging Plain packaging EU Tobacco Products Directive 

Bibliography

  1. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson, D., & Jordan, A. (2011). What have we learned from policy transfer research? Dolowitz and Marsh revisited. Political Studies Review, 9(3), 366–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bomberg, E., & Peterson, J. (2000). Policy transfer and Europeanization: Passing the Heineken Test? (Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation p0002). Queen’s University Belfast.Google Scholar
  4. Chapman, S., & Freeman, B. (2014). Removing the emperor’s clothes: Australia and tobacco plain packaging. Sydney: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Costa, H., Gilmore, A. B., Peeters, S., McKee, M., & Stuckler, D. (2014). Quantifying the influence of the tobacco industry on EU governance: Automated content analysis of the EU Tobacco Products Directive. Tobacco Control, 23, 473–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dobbin, F., Simmons, B., & Garrett, G. (2007). The global diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning? Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dolowitz, D. (2003). A policy-maker’s guide to policy transfer. The Political Quarterly, 74(1), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44(2), 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunlop, C. A. (2009). Policy transfer as learning: Capturing variation in what decision-makers learn from epistemic communities. Policy Studies, 30(3), 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans, M. (2009). Policy transfer in critical perspective. Policy Studies, 30(3), 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans, M., & Davies, J. (1999). Understanding policy transfer: A multi-level, multi-disciplinary perspective. Public Administration, 77(2), 361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gleditsch, K. S., & Ward, M. D. (2006). Diffusion and the spread of democratic institutions. International Organisations, 60, 911–933.Google Scholar
  14. Hawkins, B., & Holden, C. (2016). A corporate veto on health policy? Global constitutionalism and investor-state dispute settlement. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 13, 1–19.Google Scholar
  15. Hawkins, B., Holden, C., & Mackinder, S. (2018). A multi-level, multi-jurisdictional strategy: Transnational tobacco companies’ attempts to obstruct tobacco packaging restrictions. Global Public Health.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2018.1446997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holden, C., & Hawkins, B. (2017). Law, market building and public health in the European Union. Global Social Policy, 1–17. Google Scholar
  17. Holden, C., & Lee, K. (2009). Corporate power and social policy: The political economy of the transnational tobacco companies. Global Social Policy, 9(3), 328–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hudson, J., & Lowe, S. (2009). Understanding the policy process: Analysing welfare policy and practice (2nd ed.). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hurt, R. D., Ebbert, J. O., Muggli, M. E., Lockhart, N. J., & Robertson, C. R. (2009). Open doorway to truth: Legacy of the Minnesota tobacco trial. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 84(5), 446–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jarman, H. (2015). The politics of trade and tobacco control. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2006). Policy transfer and criminal justice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., Zito, A. R., & Brückner, L. (2003). European governance and the transfer of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) in the European Union. Public Administration, 81(3), 555–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  24. MacKenzie, R., Mathers, A., Hawkins, B., Eckhardt, J., & Smith, J. (2018). The tobacco industry’s challenge to standardised packaging: A comparative analysis of issue framing in public relations campaigns in four countries. Health Policy, 122(9), 1001–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., & Soysal, Y. (1992). World expansion of mass education, 1870–1980. Sociological Education, 65, 128–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Owen, J. M. J. (2002). The foreign imposition of domestic institutions. International Organizations, 56, 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peeters, S., Costa, H., Stuckler, D., McKee, M., & Gilmore, A. B. (2015). The revision of the 2014 European Tobacco Products Directive: An analysis of the tobacco industry’s attempts to ‘break the health silo’. Tobacco Control.  https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pierson, C., & Castles, F. G. (2002). Australian antecedents of the Third Way. Political Studies, 50, 683–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Radaelli, C. (2000). Policy transfer in the European Union: Institutional isomorphism as a source of legitimacy. Governance, 13(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Savell, E., Gilmore, A. B., Fooks, G., & Derrick, G. E. (2014). How does the tobacco industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? A systematic review. PLoS One, 9, e87389.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, K. E., Savell, E., & Gilmore, A. B. (2013). What is known about tobacco industry efforts to influence tobacco tax? A systematic review of empirical studies. Tobacco Control, 22(2), 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 545–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stone, D. (2012). Transfer and translation of policy. Policy Studies, 33(6), 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. World Health Organization (WHO). (2003). WHO framework convention on tobacco control [Online]. Available at https://www.who.int/tobacco/framework/WHO_FCTC_english.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2019.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Hawkins
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chris Holden
    • 2
  • Sophie Mackinder
    • 3
  1. 1.London School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineLondonUK
  2. 2.University of YorkYorkUK
  3. 3.Social Policy and Social WorkUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations