Influencing Policy Transnationally: Pro‐and Anti‐Tobacco Global Advocacy Networks

Abstract

Using the global tobacco advocacy networks as a case study, this article argues that the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999), which theorises how advocacy coalitions affect policymaking domestically, and Keck and Sikkink's research into transnational advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink 1998) can provide insights into the mechanisms of how transnational advocacy networks impact both local and intergovernmental policymaking. I argue that by combining aspects of each of these approaches, all sides of a policy situation can be analysed. I contrast these approaches with the epistemic communities approach (Haas 1992), suggesting that, for the tobacco policy system, the epistemic communities approach provides less insight than the other two.Many policy researchers have investigated the roles played by policy networks in the policy process (recent examples include Keck and

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

“…Several scholars have highlighted the crucial role of networks and coalitions in the development and implementation of tobacco control policies (Cairney, 2007;Farquharson, control are distinctly and unusually polarised and characterised by two groups which hold strongly opposing views and compete against each other when trying to advance their interests at the political level. Analysing the history of global tobacco control, Farquharson (2003, p. 90) argues that tobacco control policymaking is dominated by "two easily distinguishable and competing" alliances.…”

Beliefs and behavior in international policy making: Explanations to longitudinal changes in the governance of the Baltic Sea

“…This study therefore does not follow the ACF's strict definition of a policy subsystem, which only relates to one specific policy problem. Several authors have had problems with the commonly used policy subsystem definition at the international level (Farquharson 2003;Litfin 2000;Sewell 2005) and as the policy problems overlap and are interrelated within this study (e.g. eutrophication affects biodiversity).…”

The Outer Circle: The Importance of NonorganizedAdvocacy Coalitions to the Passage of Smoke-Free Policy

“…This portion of the model considers how much public consensus is needed to enact a policy change and how open political systems are to public participation (Weible, Sabatier, and McQueen 2009). Previous research by Sato (1999) and Farquharson (2003) investigated the behavior of coalitions in tobacco control policy and tobacco surveillance and research, respectively (as cited in Weible, Sabatier, and McQueen 2009). A model of the ACF framework can be found in Figure 1.…”