The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Political economy of tobacco control in Thailand
Open accessAbstract
Thailand has some of the world's strongest anti-tobacco legislation. This paper examines the political economy of tobacco control in Thailand, emphasising the identification of forces which have supported and opposed the passage of strong anti-tobacco measures. It argues that while a powerful tobacco control coalition was created in the late 1980s, the gains won by this coalition are now under threat from systematic attempts by transnational tobacco companies to strengthen their share of the Thai cigarette market. The possible privatisation of the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly could threaten the tobacco control cause, but the pro-control alliance is fighting back with a proposed Health Promotion Act which would challenge the tobacco industry with a hypothecated excise tax dedicated to health awareness campaigns.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, existing studies on how tobacco control policy is passed at the national level are focused more on tactics used by opponents (eg, lobbying, litigation, protests and other tactics to delay or subvert policy passage) rather than proponents,25–32 with few exceptions.33–36”
From Seven-year tobacco tax plan in Ukraine: a case study of the actors, tactics and factors motivating policy passage (2022) · cites this paper as [26]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, like the tobacco industry in Ukraine, powerful actors in countries across the globe and across industries threatened by policy change similarly use lobbying to water down policy to their benefit, sometimes behind closed doors.20–22 24–26 28 33 34 63–65”
From Seven-year tobacco tax plan in Ukraine: a case study of the actors, tactics and factors motivating policy passage (2022) · cites this paper as [26]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Phongpaichit P Baker C (1995) Thailand: economy and politics. (Oxford University Press, Singapore).
- Green, 2000, Reforming the health sector in Thailand: the role of policy actors on the policy stage., Int J Health Plann Mgmt, 15, 39, 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1751(200001/03)15:1<39::AID-HPM567>3.0.CO;2-9 · DOI
- 2000, Political economy of tobacco control in low-income and middle-income countries: lessons from Thailand and Zimbabwe., Bull World Health Organ, 78, 913
- Vateesaokit, 2000, Thailand: winning battles but the war's far from over., Tobacco Control, 9, 123
- Vateesatokit, 1997, Tobacco control in Thailand., Mahidol Journal, 4, 81
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Weiger, C., Hoe, C., & Cohen, J. E. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049833 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Chantornvong, S., & McCargo, D.
- Affiliations
- Thammasat University (TH)
- ORCID
- McCargo, Duncan
- Venue
- Tobacco Control
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2001-03-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 48-54
- ISSN
- 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3318
- PMC
- PMC1763992
- OpenAlex
- W2129959945
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 8.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Tobacco Control (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
- Keywords
- political economy, privatization, Health Promotion Act, excise tax, health awareness campaigns, Thailand
- MeSH terms
- Health Promotion, Humans, Politics, Smoking, Taxes, Thailand, Tobacco Industry
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
