Suchergebnisse

Although high alcohol consumption has long been a widely-recognized problem in Lithuanian public policy circles, there were no major alcohol control policy changes until 2016. This thesis argues that a unique set of circumstances were needed to impose strict alcohol measures that were introduced by the current Government. This Master thesis uses Paul Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) theory to explain what factors lead to major policy changes that were achieved in 2017. Sabatier combines "bottom up" and "top down" approaches to construct a theoretical model that explains the process of policy change in a complicated policymaking environment. Sabatier studies policy processes through the lenses of advocacy coalitions and policy subsystems. Advocacy coalitions are defined as groups of various actors that share particular belief systems and coordinate activities to achieve policy change. Policy subsystems are issue-specific networks, which are contested by opposing advocacy coalitions. According to ACF theory, an advocacy coalition can contain very diverse actors such as scientists, journalists, politicians and other actors unified by certain core beliefs. We argue that the theory fails to distinguish between actors who are active in policy making and actors who are only active in influencing policy makers. Thus, the role of political parties, arguably the most important actors in parliamentary democracies, remains relatively unclear. This thesis aims to make a small contribution towards rectifying this problem. In order to explain strict alcohol control measures imposed in 2017, this thesis analyzes Lithuania's advocacy control subsystem, which is contested by "Anti-alcohol" and "Individual choice" advocacy coalitions. "Anti-alcohol" coalition argues for tighter alcohol control through the lenses of public health interest, while "Individual choice" coalition opposes tight regulation arguing that such measures stifle individual's freedom of choice. This case is interesting, because both "Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union" (LFGU), ruling party since October 2016, and "Lithuanian Christian Democrat Unions" (LCDU), the leading opposition party, shared both core beliefs and a lot of secondary beliefs in regards to alcohol control. Although both parties shared the goal of stricter alcohol control, policy making process in 2016-2017 was marked by a high degree of political conflict. ACF theory fails to explain why two actors of "Anti-alcohol" control coalition, with shared core beliefs and most of secondary beliefs, had a profound clash. This thesis employed theory process method to study a one year time frame, from formation of a new ruling coalition in December 2016 to adoption of new alcohol control regulations in June 2017. In order to answer why a major alcohol control policy breakthrough was achieved in 2017 and what was the role of LFGU and LCDU parties in the policy change process.

Although high alcohol consumption has long been a widely-recognized problem in Lithuanian public policy circles, there were no major alcohol control policy changes until 2016. This thesis argues that a unique set of circumstances were needed to impose strict alcohol measures that were introduced by the current Government. This Master thesis uses Paul Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) theory to explain what factors lead to major policy changes that were achieved in 2017. Sabatier combines "bottom up" and "top down" approaches to construct a theoretical model that explains the process of policy change in a complicated policymaking environment. Sabatier studies policy processes through the lenses of advocacy coalitions and policy subsystems. Advocacy coalitions are defined as groups of various actors that share particular belief systems and coordinate activities to achieve policy change. Policy subsystems are issue-specific networks, which are contested by opposing advocacy coalitions. According to ACF theory, an advocacy coalition can contain very diverse actors such as scientists, journalists, politicians and other actors unified by certain core beliefs. We argue that the theory fails to distinguish between actors who are active in policy making and actors who are only active in influencing policy makers. Thus, the role of political parties, arguably the most important actors in parliamentary democracies, remains relatively unclear. This thesis aims to make a small contribution towards rectifying this problem. In order to explain strict alcohol control measures imposed in 2017, this thesis analyzes Lithuania's advocacy control subsystem, which is contested by "Anti-alcohol" and "Individual choice" advocacy coalitions. "Anti-alcohol" coalition argues for tighter alcohol control through the lenses of public health interest, while "Individual choice" coalition opposes tight regulation arguing that such measures stifle individual's freedom of choice. This case is interesting, because both "Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union" (LFGU), ruling party since October 2016, and "Lithuanian Christian Democrat Unions" (LCDU), the leading opposition party, shared both core beliefs and a lot of secondary beliefs in regards to alcohol control. Although both parties shared the goal of stricter alcohol control, policy making process in 2016-2017 was marked by a high degree of political conflict. ACF theory fails to explain why two actors of "Anti-alcohol" control coalition, with shared core beliefs and most of secondary beliefs, had a profound clash. This thesis employed theory process method to study a one year time frame, from formation of a new ruling coalition in December 2016 to adoption of new alcohol control regulations in June 2017. In order to answer why a major alcohol control policy breakthrough was achieved in 2017 and what was the role of LFGU and LCDU parties in the policy change process.

Although high alcohol consumption has long been a widely-recognized problem in Lithuanian public policy circles, there were no major alcohol control policy changes until 2016. This thesis argues that a unique set of circumstances were needed to impose strict alcohol measures that were introduced by the current Government. This Master thesis uses Paul Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) theory to explain what factors lead to major policy changes that were achieved in 2017. Sabatier combines "bottom up" and "top down" approaches to construct a theoretical model that explains the process of policy change in a complicated policymaking environment. Sabatier studies policy processes through the lenses of advocacy coalitions and policy subsystems. Advocacy coalitions are defined as groups of various actors that share particular belief systems and coordinate activities to achieve policy change. Policy subsystems are issue-specific networks, which are contested by opposing advocacy coalitions. According to ACF theory, an advocacy coalition can contain very diverse actors such as scientists, journalists, politicians and other actors unified by certain core beliefs. We argue that the theory fails to distinguish between actors who are active in policy making and actors who are only active in influencing policy makers. Thus, the role of political parties, arguably the most important actors in parliamentary democracies, remains relatively unclear. This thesis aims to make a small contribution towards rectifying this problem. In order to explain strict alcohol control measures imposed in 2017, this thesis analyzes Lithuania's advocacy control subsystem, which is contested by "Anti-alcohol" and "Individual choice" advocacy coalitions. "Anti-alcohol" coalition argues for tighter alcohol control through the lenses of public health interest, while "Individual choice" coalition opposes tight regulation arguing that such measures stifle individual's freedom of choice. This case is interesting, because both "Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union" (LFGU), ruling party since October 2016, and "Lithuanian Christian Democrat Unions" (LCDU), the leading opposition party, shared both core beliefs and a lot of secondary beliefs in regards to alcohol control. Although both parties shared the goal of stricter alcohol control, policy making process in 2016-2017 was marked by a high degree of political conflict. ACF theory fails to explain why two actors of "Anti-alcohol" control coalition, with shared core beliefs and most of secondary beliefs, had a profound clash. This thesis employed theory process method to study a one year time frame, from formation of a new ruling coalition in December 2016 to adoption of new alcohol control regulations in June 2017. In order to answer why a major alcohol control policy breakthrough was achieved in 2017 and what was the role of LFGU and LCDU parties in the policy change process.

Although high alcohol consumption has long been a widely-recognized problem in Lithuanian public policy circles, there were no major alcohol control policy changes until 2016. This thesis argues that a unique set of circumstances were needed to impose strict alcohol measures that were introduced by the current Government. This Master thesis uses Paul Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) theory to explain what factors lead to major policy changes that were achieved in 2017. Sabatier combines "bottom up" and "top down" approaches to construct a theoretical model that explains the process of policy change in a complicated policymaking environment. Sabatier studies policy processes through the lenses of advocacy coalitions and policy subsystems. Advocacy coalitions are defined as groups of various actors that share particular belief systems and coordinate activities to achieve policy change. Policy subsystems are issue-specific networks, which are contested by opposing advocacy coalitions. According to ACF theory, an advocacy coalition can contain very diverse actors such as scientists, journalists, politicians and other actors unified by certain core beliefs. We argue that the theory fails to distinguish between actors who are active in policy making and actors who are only active in influencing policy makers. Thus, the role of political parties, arguably the most important actors in parliamentary democracies, remains relatively unclear. This thesis aims to make a small contribution towards rectifying this problem. In order to explain strict alcohol control measures imposed in 2017, this thesis analyzes Lithuania's advocacy control subsystem, which is contested by "Anti-alcohol" and "Individual choice" advocacy coalitions. "Anti-alcohol" coalition argues for tighter alcohol control through the lenses of public health interest, while "Individual choice" coalition opposes tight regulation arguing that such measures stifle individual's freedom of choice. This case is interesting, because both "Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union" (LFGU), ruling party since October 2016, and "Lithuanian Christian Democrat Unions" (LCDU), the leading opposition party, shared both core beliefs and a lot of secondary beliefs in regards to alcohol control. Although both parties shared the goal of stricter alcohol control, policy making process in 2016-2017 was marked by a high degree of political conflict. ACF theory fails to explain why two actors of "Anti-alcohol" control coalition, with shared core beliefs and most of secondary beliefs, had a profound clash. This thesis employed theory process method to study a one year time frame, from formation of a new ruling coalition in December 2016 to adoption of new alcohol control regulations in June 2017. In order to answer why a major alcohol control policy breakthrough was achieved in 2017 and what was the role of LFGU and LCDU parties in the policy change process.