Cited by 60Policy Transfer and LearningGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyPublic Policy and Administration Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Tobacco’s Tipping Point: The Master Settlement Agreement as a Focusing Event

Wood, Robert S.·2006·Policy Studies Journal

Abstract

Focusing events have been widely referenced in policy studies literature as important drivers of major policy change. In multiple streams theory, punctuated equilibrium theory, and the advocacy coalition framework, they play a prominent role in explaining how major changes occur. Nearly all existing research, however, has focused on the very large and catastrophic events that catapult otherwise obscure issues onto the agenda, to the neglect of focusing events that may perform other functions. This article examines one such event: the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between the tobacco industry and the states signed in 1998. I observe that although the MSA focused substantial attention on the topic of tobacco regulation, produced major policy change, and shifted the policy image of the domain, it was not a typical focusing event. Drawing from the tipping point theories of Sociology and Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point, I expand a theoretical distinction articulated by Baumgartner and Jones between “triggering” events and “consolidating” or “tipping” events to resolve this discrepancy.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00180.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 importance of the EU-UAA as a motivating factor driving policy adoption fits within the literature highlighting how the FCTC and Master Settlement Agreement have also motivated tobacco policy.

    “The importance of the EU-UAA as a motivating factor driving policy adoption fits within the literature highlighting how the FCTC and Master Settlement Agreement have also motivated tobacco policy.24 66 67”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.08.036 · DOI
  2. Associated Press.1997. “Tobacco Deal Lacks Support Poll Finds.Daily Progress(August 29 1997): 1.
  3. Baumgartner Frank R., 1993, Agendas and Instability in American Politics
  4. Birkland Thomas A., 1997, After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events
  5. 10.1017/S0143814X98000038 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00068.x · DOI
  7. Carson Rachel., 1962, Silent Spring
  8. Cartland Jennifer.2004.Public Shock and the Policy‐Making Process: The Case of School Shootings. Paper read at Midwestern Political Science Conference Chicago.
  9. Cobb Roger W., 1983, Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda‐Building
  10. Crane Jonathan., 1989, The Epidemic Theory of Ghettos and Neighborhood Effects on Dropping Out and Teenage Childbearing, American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1226
  11. Derthick Martha A., 2005, Up in Smoke: From Legislation to Litigation in Tobacco Politics
  12. 10.2307/2008920 · DOI
  13. 10.1080/01463379909385567 · DOI
  14. Gladwell Malcolm., 2000, The Tipping Point
  15. 10.1086/226707 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Kingdon John W., 1995, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies
  17. Koop C. Everett., 1991, Koop: The Memoirs of America's Family Doctor
  18. Ladd Everett Carll., 1998, The Tobacco Bill and American Public Opinion, Public Perspective, 6, 6
  19. 10.1001/jama.271.20.1562 · DOI
  20. 10.1136/tc.2004.009878 · DOI
  21. 10.2307/2111674 · DOI
  22. Sabatier Paul A., 1999, Theories of the Policy Process, Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy
  23. 10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989794 · DOI
  24. Schelling Thomas., 1978, Micromotives and Macrobehavior
  25. 10.2307/2939044 · DOI
  26. 10.1515/9781400821570 · DOI
  27. Stimson James A., 1999, Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings
  28. Stone Deborah., 2002, Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making
  29. Wilson James Q., 1980, The Politics of Regulation
  30. 10.1177/0160323X0403600304 · DOI
  31. 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00153.x · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Wood, R. S.
Affiliations
University of North Dakota (US)
Corresponding author
Wood, Robert S.
Venue
Policy Studies Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-08
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
419-436
ISSN
  • 0190-292X (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0072
OpenAlex
W1999122027
Cited by
60
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Policy Studies Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policy Transfer and Learning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
Master Settlement Agreement, tobacco regulation, focusing events, triggering events, tobacco industry, policy change, agenda setting, multiple streams theory, punctuated equilibrium, advocacy coalition framework, Malcolm Gladwell

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