The Alcohol Policy Development Process: Policymakers Speak

Abstract

We investigate the policymaking activities of members of the federal alcohol-policy community, including efforts to raise issues on the agenda, develop policy alternatives, and influence political decisions. Qualitative data (observations, attitudes, and activities in relation to alcohol policymaking dynamics) from 64 key-informant interviews inform this analysis of strategies and tactics. The paper draws on archival data, including interest-group newsletters and government documents. It describes the various perspectives from which Congress, federal agencies, industry groups (alcohol producers, national trade organizations, broadcasters, and advertisers), public health activist organizations, researchers, and journalists view the process of federal-level alcohol policymaking. While there are considerable differences in problem-framing strategies and paradigms, alcohol policymakers view the dynamics in ways consistent with political scientists' theories based on general health policy. Insights gained have the potential to improve understanding of public policymaking in the alcohol area and could help to advance public health policy objectives.

Views of alcohol control policies in the 2000 National Alcohol Survey: What news for alcohol policy development in the US and its States?

“…Once problems again abate, a later generation tends to have forgotten the problems, social constraints including laws are reduced, and there is again an upturn in drinking beginning another long wave. The role of public health researchers and advocates in the maintenance and passage of alcohol legislation is modest at best (Greenfield, Johnson, & Giesbrecht, 2004a;Johnson, Greenfield, Giesbrecht, Kaskutas, & Anglin, 2004), but under the right conditions, such players may participate in the policy development process in critical ways as they did in the passage of the warning label legislation for instance (Kaskutas, 1995), providing needed justifications for moving legislation during windows of opportunity (Kingdon, 1995).…”

Buzz Kill: State Adoption of DUI Interlock Laws, 2005–11

“…A shift began in the 1970s as citizen activists, churches, and interest groups began to successfully lobby for state government regulations to reduce the incidence of driving while being intoxicated and publicly shame violators (Greenfield, Giesbrecht et al, ; Gusfield, ). In the language of policy scholars, activists were able to successfully redefine drinking and driving as a public problem by relocating causes, and subsequent blame, as well as who was responsible for reducing the problem (see Stone, ), in part because of emotionally dramatic events (Baumgartner & Jones, ; Kingdon, ), such as the deaths of children in DUI‐related accidents (Gusfield, ), and because of related shifts in public attitudes about alcohol use and regulation (Greenfield, Johnson, et al, ; Greenfield, Ye, & Giesbrecht, ) and driving after drinking (see Wagenaar et al, ).…”

“…Additionally, actions or signaled inaction by the national government could inspire states to formulate policy (see Allen, Pettus, & Haider‐Markel, ). Research on national policymaking in regards to alcohol‐related policy does not reveal any significant attention to interlock policy (Greenfield, Johnson, et al, ), so our analysis does not include any measures of actions at the federal level.…”

“…We also expect that our measure of legislative ideology is highly correlated with citizen ideology (Berry et al, ) and, thus, we do not include an independent measure of public opinion in our analysis. Even so, policymakers and lobbyists suggest that public opinion has little direct influence in alcohol‐related policymaking (Greenfield, Johnson, et al, ).…”

“…The protective regulatory framework also suggests that policymaking on regulatory policy will partly be the result of conflicts between interest groups (Boushey, ; Gray & Lowery, ; Greenfield, Johnson, et al, ; Nownes et al, ; Ripley & Franklin, ). In the case of DUI interlock laws, an ideal measure of groups supporting these policies would be MADD resources or lobbying in a state; unfortunately neither MADD membership nor donor data is available by state.…”