The Policy Dystopia Model: An Interpretive Analysis of Tobacco Industry Political Activity

Abstract

BackgroundTobacco industry interference has been identified as the greatest obstacle to the implementation of evidence-based measures to reduce tobacco use. Understanding and addressing industry interference in public health policy-making is therefore crucial. Existing conceptualisations of corporate political activity (CPA) are embedded in a business perspective and do not attend to CPA’s social and public health costs; most have not drawn on the unique resource represented by internal tobacco industry documents. Building on this literature, including systematic reviews, we develop a critically informed conceptual model of tobacco industry political activity.Methods and FindingsWe thematically analysed published papers included in two systematic reviews examining tobacco industry influence on taxation and marketing of tobacco; we included 45 of 46 papers in the former category and 20 of 48 papers in the latter (n = 65). We used a grounded theory approach to build taxonomies of “discursive” (argument-based) and “instrumental” (action-based) industry strategies and from these devised the Policy Dystopia Model, which shows that the industry, working through different constituencies, constructs a metanarrative to argue that proposed policies will lead to a dysfunctional future of policy failure and widely dispersed adverse social and economic consequences. Simultaneously, it uses diverse, interlocking insider and outsider instrumental strategies to disseminate this narrative and enhance its persuasiveness in order to secure its preferred policy outcomes. Limitations are that many papers were historical (some dating back to the 1970s) and focused on high-income regions.ConclusionsThe model provides an evidence-based, accessible way of understanding diverse corporate political strategies. It should enable public health actors and officials to preempt these strategies and develop realistic assessments of the industry’s claims.

Can’t see the woods for the trees: exploring the range and connection of tobacco industry argumentation in the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation

“…Historically, the tobacco industry primarily opposed policies by denying the health risks associated first with smoking and then with secondhand smoke 54. Once the emergence of a broad scientific and political consensus on the health risks of active and passive smoking rendered this strategy unviable,54 TTCs began to acknowledge the health risks associated with smoking,55–58 and switched their approach to questioning the effectiveness of policies on reducing health risks and pointing to the broader social and economic costs of tobacco control 59. TTCs continue to make these arguments,40–42 but have now mobilised the issue of illicit tobacco trade to claim that tobacco policies actually work against public health objectives.…”

Social determinants of tobacco use: towards an equity lens approach

“…Ironically, this tree is particularly water consuming, rapidly depleting water tables and scorching the soil 51 . In addition, recent work by Ulucanlar et al 62 has very pointedly shed light on how "industry, working through different constituencies, constructs a metanarrative to argue that proposed policies will lead to a dysfunctional future of policy failure and widely dispersed adverse social and economic consequences. Simultaneously, it uses diverse, interlocking insider and outsider instrumental strategies to disseminate this narrative and enhance its persuasiveness in order to secure its preferred policy outcomes" 62 .…”

“…In addition, recent work by Ulucanlar et al 62 has very pointedly shed light on how "industry, working through different constituencies, constructs a metanarrative to argue that proposed policies will lead to a dysfunctional future of policy failure and widely dispersed adverse social and economic consequences. Simultaneously, it uses diverse, interlocking insider and outsider instrumental strategies to disseminate this narrative and enhance its persuasiveness in order to secure its preferred policy outcomes" 62 . Governments of tobacco-producing countries have greater difficulty in confronting the industry since their foreign earnings are closely associated with it and many of their citizens are engaged in tobacco farming 63 .…”

Role of stakeholders in Nigeria’s tobacco control journey after the FCTC: lessons for tobacco control advocacy in low-income and middle-income countries

“…The Policy Dystopia Model22 and the six categories of tobacco industry interference identified by WHO23 were developed using examples largely from high-income countries. We used these frameworks to assess the tobacco industry’s strategies to oppose tobacco control and strategies used by tobacco control advocates to push for FCTC-compliant legislation in Nigeria.…”

“…We used these frameworks to assess the tobacco industry’s strategies to oppose tobacco control and strategies used by tobacco control advocates to push for FCTC-compliant legislation in Nigeria. The Policy Dystopia Model22 broadly categorises tobacco industry’s strategies into discursive (argument-based) and instrumental (activity-based) strategies. WHO classifies tobacco industry interference into six categories: (1) Manoeuvring to hijack the political and legislative process; (2) Exaggerating the economic importance of the industry; (3) Manipulating public opinion to gain the appearance of respectability; (4) Fabricating support through front groups; (5) Discrediting proven science and (6) Intimidating governments with litigation or the threat of litigation 23.…”