Collective Actors and Corporate Targets in Tobacco Control: A Cross-National Comparison

Abstract

Cross-national comparative analysis of tobacco control strategies can alert health advocates to how opportunities for public health action, types of action, and probabilities for success are shaped by political systems and cultures. This article is based on case studies of tobacco control in the United States, Canada, Britain, and France. Two questions are addressed: (a) To whom were the dangers of smoking attributed? and (b) What was the role of collective action--grassroots level organization--in combating these dangers? Activists in Canada, Britain, and France moved earlier than the United States did to target the tobacco industry and the state. Locally based advocacy centered on passive smoking has been far more important in the United States. The author concludes that U.S.-style advocacy has played a major role in this country's smoking decline but is insufficient in and of itself to change the corporate practices of a wealthy and politically powerful industry.

Cancer Prevention through Stealth: Science, Policy Advocacy, and Multilevel Governance in the Establishment of a “National Tobacco Control Regime” in the United States: Table 1

“…Nevertheless, the formation of successful coalitions, even under federal sponsorship, in other states also may have reinforced this view (Pertschuk 2001). Nathanson (1996Nathanson ( , 2005 contrasts three approaches to tobacco control in Westem democracies-outside govemment (United States), inside govemment (France), and inside-outside (Canada). Certainly the US federal govemment has struggled to find its role in tobacco control, as indicated by its lack of broad regulatory power, ongoing fragmentation of authority over different dimensions of the issue, and generally disappointing results for pre-mid-1990s policy initiatives.…”

“…Scientific knowledge in an epistemic community became transferred into policy through institutions (Jasanoff 1986(Jasanoff , 2005. To do this, governments took advantage of the opportunity for policy change through increasingly favorable public opinion toward tobacco control, working with antitobacco advocacy coalitions and social movements to change policy (Keck and Sikkink 1998;Farquharson 2003;Nathanson 1996Nathanson ,1999Nathanson , 2005Nathanson , 2007aNathanson , 2007b. But policy change occurred not through a frontal assault by central authority against entrenched tobacco promotion interests but often indirectly through venue shifting (Baumgartner and Jones 1993) and multilevel governance (Hooghe and Marks 2003;Stein and Turkewitsch 2009).…”

Introduction

“…Fortunately, a small but growing body of literature emerging on the politics of tobacco control is slowly gaining attention (Cohen et al, 2000). In the past ten years or so, some useful attempts have been made to understand how and why specific tobacco policies have emerged in specific social, cultural, and political contexts (Albaek, Green-Pedersen, & Nielsen, 2007;Bryan-Jones & Chapman, 2008;Feldman & Bayer, 2004;Grüning, Strünk, & Gilmore, 2008;Kurzer & Cooper, 2016;Nathanson, 2005;Reid, 2005;Studlar, 2002Studlar, , 2007aStudlar, , 2007bYoung, Borland, & Coghill, 2010). To give one example, Nathanson (2005) examined differences in countries' political systems and cultures, and how these evolve over time.…”

“…In the past ten years or so, some useful attempts have been made to understand how and why specific tobacco policies have emerged in specific social, cultural, and political contexts (Albaek, Green-Pedersen, & Nielsen, 2007;Bryan-Jones & Chapman, 2008;Feldman & Bayer, 2004;Grüning, Strünk, & Gilmore, 2008;Kurzer & Cooper, 2016;Nathanson, 2005;Reid, 2005;Studlar, 2002Studlar, , 2007aStudlar, , 2007bYoung, Borland, & Coghill, 2010). To give one example, Nathanson (2005) examined differences in countries' political systems and cultures, and how these evolve over time. She explained the diversity in trajectories by pointing to differences in how policymaking is organised and structured (e.g., whether there is a federal or centralised government and how much executive power the government has), the resources and access to policymakers that anti-and pro-tobacco groups have, and the dominant ideologies regarding tobacco use and the role of the state versus individual responsibility.…”

Commentary on Public Health Advocacy to Change Corporate Practices

“…A lack of understanding about the roots and effects of that tension remains a formidable barrier to effective public health advocacy. Nathanson's (2005) retrospective, cross-national analysis of actions taken to mitigate the negative health effects of tobacco in the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and the United States is a thoughtful and complementary addition to the health education literature. For advocates undertaking strategic efforts to address corporate actions and policies in different international settings, her analysis yields helpful insights and reinforces a fundamental tenet of health promotion practice: To be effective, health advocacy must take into account the unique cultural and political nuances of a given place, be that a nation, state, or community.…”