Share This Article:

Advocacy and Policy Change in the Multilevel System of the European Union: A Case Study within Health Policy

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:156KB) PP. 32-44
DOI: 10.4236/ojps.2012.23005    4,772 Downloads   8,555 Views   Citations
Author(s)    Leave a comment

ABSTRACT

Health policy is basically Member States’ competence. However, the European Union has recently raised a number of key questions facing both (pharmaceutical) industries and public health interests. By applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the paper sheds light on policy change within the European multilevel system. The analysis is based on a case-study strategy. Two processes in the pharmaceutical policy are taken into account: the “Pharma Forum” and the “Pharma Package”. They both concern “information to patient”—a controversial policy issue at the crossroad of competing pressures.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Carboni, N. (2012) Advocacy and Policy Change in the Multilevel System of the European Union: A Case Study within Health Policy. Open Journal of Political Science, 2, 32-44. doi: 10.4236/ojps.2012.23005.

References

[1] Anderson, P. (2009). The new old world. London: Verso.
[2] Bryant, T. (2002). Role of knowledge in public health and health promotion policy change. Health Promotion International, 17, 89-98. doi:10.1093/heapro/17.1.89
[3] Carboni, N. (2009). Advocacy groups in the multilevel system of the EU: A case study in health policy-making. OSE Paper Series, Research Paper 1, 1-35.
[4] Cram, L. (1993). Calling the tune without paying the piper: Social policy regulation: The role of the commission in European Union social policy. Policy and Politics, 21, 135-146. doi:10.1332/030557393782453899
[5] Cram, L. (1997). Policy-making and the integration process implications for integration theory. London: Routledge.
[6] European Public Health Alliance (2008). Pharmaceutical package: Better but far from perfect. Brussels: European Public Health Alliance Press Release.
[7] Greer, S. (2006). Uninvited europeanization: Neofunctionalism and the EU in health policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 134-152. doi:10.1080/13501760500380783
[8] Greer, S., & Vanhercke, B. (2009). Healthcare and the EU: The hard politics of soft law. In E. Mossialos, R. Baeten, & T. Hervey (Eds.), Health system governance in Europe: The role of EU law and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[9] Héritier, A. (2007). Explaining institutional change in Europe. Oxford, OH: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298129.001.0001
[10] Jenkins-Smith H. C., & Sabatier, P. (1993). Policy change and learning. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
[11] Jenkins-Smith H. C., & Sabatier, P. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117-166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
[12] Laffan, B. (1997). From policy entrepreneur to policy manager: The challenge facing the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 4, 422-438. doi:10.1080/13501769780000081
[13] Lamping, W. (2005). European integration and health policy: A peculiar relationship. In M. Steffen (Ed.), Health governance in Europe. Issues, challenges, and theorie (pp. 18-48). London: Routledge.
[14] Leibfried, S., & Pierson, P. (2000). Social policy. Left to courts and markets? In H. Wallace and W. Wallace (Eds.), Policy making in the European Union (pp. 273-293). Oxford, OH: Oxford University Press.
[15] Mossialos, E., Permanand, G., Baeten, R., & Harvey, T. (2009). Health systems governance in Europe: The role of EU law and policy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
[16] Mossialos, E., & Permanand, G. (2005a). Constitutional asymmetry and pharmaceutical policy-making in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 687-609. doi:10.1080/13501760500160607
[17] Mossialos, E., & Permanand, G. (2005b). The europeanization of regulatory policy in the EU pharmaceutical sector. In M. Steffen (Ed.), Health governance in Europe: Issues, challenges and theories (pp. 49-80). London and New York: Routledge.
[18] Sabatier, P. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5, 98-130. doi:10.1080/13501768880000051
[19] Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2005). Comparing policy networks: Marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal, 33, 161-180.
[20] Scharpf, F. (2000). Institutions in comparative policy research. Comparative Political Studies, 33, 762-790. doi:10.1177/001041400003300604
[21] Smith, A. (2000). Policy networks and advocacy coalitions: Explaining policy change and continuity in UK industrial pollution policy? Brighton and Hove: University of Sussex.
[22] Vanhercke, B. (2009). Against the odds. The open method of coordination as a selective amplifier for reforming Belgian pension policies. In S. Kr?ger (Ed.), What we have learnt: Advances, pitfalls and remaining questions in OMC research (pp. 1-18). European Integration online Papers. http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2009-016a.htm
[23] Vogt, W. (1999). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences. London: Sage.
[24] Weible, C. M. (2007). An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: Understanding the political context of California marine protected area policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 95-117.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.