Influencing Policy Transnationally: Pro‐and Anti‐Tobacco Global Advocacy Networks
Abstract
Using the global tobacco advocacy networks as a case study, this article argues that the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier and Jenkins‐Smith 1999), which theorises how advocacy coalitions affect policymaking domestically, and Keck and Sikkink's research into transnational advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink 1998) can provide insights into the mechanisms of how transnational advocacy networks impact both local and intergovernmental policymaking. I argue that by combining aspects of each of these approaches, all sides of a policy situation can be analysed. I contrast these approaches with the epistemic communities approach (Haas 1992), suggesting that, for the tobacco policy system, the epistemic communities approach provides less insight than the other two.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The WHO FCTC establishes evidence-based standards for tobacco control that provide a framework in which tobacco control advocates can play significant roles in securing comprehensive national tobacco control policies.
“WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control1 (FCTC) establishes evidence-based standards for tobacco control that provide a framework in which tobacco control advocates can play significant roles in securing comprehensive national tobacco control policies.2–6”
From Role of stakeholders in Nigeria’s tobacco control journey after the FCTC: lessons for tobacco control advocacy in low-income and middle-income countries (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
Advocacy networks and epistemic communities have continuously improved the links between science and advocacy to advance tobacco control policy; the Uruguay case highlights how this network strengthened the links between trade and tobacco control to combat emerging pressures of trade on health.
“Advocacy networks and epistemic communities have continuously improved the links between science and advocacy to advance tobacco control policy13149496; the Uruguay case highlights how this network strengthened the links between trade and tobacco control to combat emerging pressures of trade on health.”
From Defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay: transnational tobacco control network versus Philip Morris International (2018) · cites this paper as [14]
Although governments negotiated and executed the FCTC, tobacco control civil society organisations played an important role in the FCTC negotiation.
“Although governments negotiated and executed the FCTC, tobacco control civil society organisations played important role in the FCTC negotiation (Collin, Lee et al. 2002; Farquharson 2003; White 2004; Mamudu 2005; Roemer, Taylor et al. 2005).”
From Civil society and the negotiation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (2009) · cites this paper as Farquharson 2003
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Civil society and the negotiation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
Mamudu, H. M., & Glantz, S. A. (2009) · Global Public Health · doi:10.1080/17441690802095355 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Crosbie, E., Sosa, P., & Glantz, S. A. (2018) · Tobacco control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053690 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Egbe, C. O., Bialous, S. A., & Glantz, S. (2019) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054344 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Weiger, C., Hoe, C., & Cohen, J. E. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049833 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Farquharson, K.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Farquharson, Karen
- ORCID
- Farquharson, Karen
- Venue
- Australian Journal of Public Administration
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 80-92
- ISSN
- 0313-6647 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8500
- OpenAlex
- W2172028048
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 8.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Australian Journal of Public Administration (publishedVersion)
- Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policy Transfer and Learning
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Keywords
- tobacco control, transnational advocacy networks, advocacy coalition framework, epistemic communities, anti-tobacco advocacy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
