Understanding the science–policy nexus in Belgium: An analysis of the drug policy debate (1996–2003)

Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Multiple Streams policy theories to examine the role of evidence, research and other types of knowledge in drug policy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The prevailing 'evidence-based policy' paradigm emphasizes a technical-rational relationship between alcohol and drug research evidence and subsequent policy action. However, policy process theories do not start with this premise, and hence provide an opportunity to consider anew the ways in which evidence, research and other types of knowledge impact upon policy. This paper presents a case study, the police deployment of drug detection dogs, to highlight how two prominent policy theories [the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the Multiple Streams (MS) approach] explicate the relationship between evidence and policy.

METHODS

The two theories were interrogated with reference to their descriptions and framings of evidence, research and other types of knowledge. The case study methodology was employed to extract data concerned with evidence and other types of knowledge from a previous detailed historical account and analysis of drug detection dogs in one Australian state (New South Wales). Different types of knowledge employed across the case study were identified and coded, and then analysed with reference to each theory. A detailed analysis of one key 'evidence event' within the case study was also undertaken.

RESULTS

Five types of knowledge were apparent in the case study: quantitative program data; practitioner knowledge; legal knowledge; academic research; and lay knowledge. The ACF highlights how these various types of knowledge are only influential inasmuch as they provide the opportunity to alter the beliefs of decision-makers. The MS highlights how multiple types of knowledge may or may not form part of the strategy of policy entrepreneurs to forge the confluence of problems, solutions and politics.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither the Advocacy Coalition Framework nor the Multiple Streams approach presents an uncomplicated linear relationship between evidence and policy action, nor do they preference any one type of knowledge. The implications for research and practice include the contestation of evidence through beliefs (Advocacy Coalition Framework), the importance of venues for debate (Advocacy Coalition Framework), the way in which data and indicators are transformed into problem specification (Multiple Streams) and the importance of the policy ('alternatives') stream (Multiple Streams).

Stakeholders' Arguments for and against Moving Swedish Substance abuse Treatment to the Health Care System: How a Fat Reform Proposal became a Thin Government Bill

Background

Far-reaching changes in the Swedish substance abuse treatment system (SAT) were proposed by a state-commissioned inquiry in 2011. The proposal implied a break with the social tradition of SAT. It was suggested that the treatment responsibility should be transferred from the municipal social services to the regional-level health care system; and that compulsory treatment in its present form (assessed by/paid for by social services, run by the state) should be abolished and become incorporated into coercive psychiatric care provided by health care. A lively debate arose, and the vast majority of stakeholders sought to articulate their arguments.

Aim

The study analysed the development of Swedish SAT by examining the policy process from reform proposal to government bill in 2013.

Method

Content analysis was used to analyse written comments on the proposal submitted to the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs by close to 200 stakeholders. The goal was to empirically chart and examine the arguments for and against as well as advocates and opponents of the reform. With the government bill at hand, we retrospectively sorted out the winning arguments in the now highly contested SAT field and which actors were able to influence the process.

Conclusions

The article discloses that the mixed response and rather critical voices in most groups, including social/medical professions and government bureaucracy, helped block the responsibility shifts, and that reformations of subsystems like SAT are difficult to carry out as freestanding projects within larger systems of social and health care.