Search results

AbstractIdeas and institutions are frequently used as explanatory concepts regarding policy development and change. There is an on‐going debate as to the explanatory weight that each should be afforded; Weiss and Carayannis (2001) identify a spectrum of opinions, with 'institutionalist' approaches that embed ideas within institutionalist frameworks at one end, and 'constructivist' approaches which argue that ideational concepts should be dis‐embedded from institutional considerations at the other. Drawing on 43 interviews with senior World Bank staff and a documentary analysis, this paper traces two policy agendas – social protection and fragile states – to identify the institutional and ideational features of the World Bank that a developmental agenda must navigate to achieve prominence in the Bank's work. It finds that the success of a policy agenda is determined by whether the ideas fit with a macro‐ideational dominant paradigm, and identifies several institutional features such as the incentive structure and lending mechanisms that influence an agenda's success.

Chapter 1: Introduction -- Chapter 2: Policy transfer in the context of multi-level governance -- Chapter 3: The EU Tobacco Products Directive -- Chapter 4: The member-state level: standardised packaging in Ireland and beyond -- Chapter 5: Policy transfer and transnational NGO networks -- Chapter 6: Discussion and conclusion

Despite the extensive literature on the tobacco industry, there has been little attempt to study how transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) coordinate their political activities globally, or to theorise TTC strategies within the context of global governance structures and policy processes. This article draws on three concepts from political science – policy transfer, multi-level governance and venue shifting – to analyse TTCs' integrated, global strategies to oppose augmented packaging requirements across multiple jurisdictions. Following Uruguay's introduction of extended labelling requirements, Australia became the first country in the world to require tobacco products to be sold in standardised ('plain') packaging in 2012. Governments in the European Union (EU), including in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland, adopted similar laws, with other member states due to follow. TTCs vehemently opposed these measures and developed coordinated, global strategies to oppose their implementation, exploiting the complexity of contemporary global governance arrangements. These included a series of legal challenges in various jurisdictions, alongside political lobbying and public relations campaigns. This article draws on analysis of public documents and 32 semi-structured interviews with key policy actors. It finds that TTCs developed coordinated and highly integrated strategies to oppose packaging restrictions across multiple jurisdictions and levels of governance.

Despite the extensive literature on the tobacco industry, there has been little attempt to study how transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) coordinate their political activities globally, or to theorise TTC strategies within the context of global governance structures and policy processes. This article draws on three concepts from political science - policy transfer, multi-level governance and venue shifting - to analyse TTCs' integrated, global strategies to oppose augmented packaging requirements across multiple jurisdictions. Following Uruguay's introduction of extended labelling requirements, Australia became the first country in the world to require tobacco products to be sold in standardised ('plain') packaging in 2012. Governments in the European Union, including in the United Kingdom and Ireland, adopted similar laws, with other member states due to follow. TTCs vehemently opposed these measures and developed coordinated, global strategies to oppose their implementation, exploiting the complexity of contemporary global governance arrangements. These included a series of legal challenges in various jurisdictions, alongside political lobbying and public relations campaigns. This article draws on analysis of public documents and 32 semi-structured interviews with key policy actors. It finds that TTCs developed coordinated and highly integrated strategies to oppose packaging restrictions across multiple jurisdictions and levels of governance.

AbstractIt is commonly argued that public support for the welfare state is in long‐term decline in the UK. Evidence from the British Social Attitudes Survey (BSA) is typically cited to support this claim, but it only stretches back to 1983. Few would disagree that the Thatcher years offered an unusual socio‐political‐economic context, which raises a question over whether the BSA's early 1980s baseline provides a misleading view on support for the welfare state over the longue durée. In this article, we explore this issue, piecing together data from the Beveridge era through to the present day, drawing on data from contemporary studies and surveys; opinion polls; and historical government surveys and reports. Our method is undoubtedly a 'second best approach', making use of often limited historical data, which means we remain cautious in offering bold findings. However, we argue there is some evidence to suggest the 1980s were an unusual moment, suggesting the decline in support for welfare is less dramatic than analysis of the BSA might make it seem, but also that support for the welfare state during the postwar consensus years was likely more equivocal than we often believe it to be from today's perspective, perhaps reflecting a tendency to reify this period as a 'golden age' of welfare and so underplaying the complexity of the politics of social policy in the pre‐BSA period.