(review)Policy windows and multiple streams : An analysis of alcohol pricing policy in England
This article aimed to use Kingdon’s multiple streams model to explain the failure of minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol in England. This article believed that the reason why MUP failed is mainly due to political fluency.
Problem Stream (identification of an issue)
Raising alcohol harms in society
Who should be targeted by the policy?
minority of problematic drinkers
heavy episodic drinking rather than long-term heavy drinking
MUP is a whole population measure. However, MUP can also be said to be a targeted measure as not all products are affected by it.
Policy Stream (development of potential policy)
The development of MUP
Modeling test by researchers at the University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research, which succeeded in changing the farming of policy debates to the whole-population approach.
Laid a foundation for policy entrepreneurs to bring forward proposals to adopt price-based interventions and create a window of opportunity for policy change.
Success developed MUP in Scotland. MUP soon emerged as the key alcohol policy focus in the UK.
Political Stream (political factors)
inclusion of MUP in the government alcohol strategy
The Conservative- Liberal Democrat coalition government was formed in May2010. The Liberal Democrats had committed to "support a ban on below-cost selling" and in favour of MUP.
Failed
Lack of political commitment
lacked political support within government
No champions at senior ministerial levels prepared to against strong opposition
Failed to offer public endorsement
Brexit negotiations absorbed political focus and energy < high priority
Discussion
The ability of “Spillover” to occur between policy settings within the UK (Scotland > England)
Importance of high-level political commitment
Highlights the important role that civil society actors can play
Hawkins, B., & McCambridge, J. (2020). Policy Windows and multiple streams: An analysis of alcohol pricing policy in England. Policy & Politics, 48(2), 315-333. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15724461566370
Comments
Post a Comment