Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We investigate the policymaking activities of members of the federal alcohol-policy community, including efforts to raise issues on the agenda, develop policy alternatives, and influence political decisions. Qualitative data (observations, attitudes, and activities in relation to alcohol policymaking dynamics) from 64 key-informant interviews inform this analysis of strategies and tactics. The paper draws on archival data, including interest-group newsletters and government documents. It describes the various perspectives from which Congress, federal agencies, industry groups (alcohol producers, national trade organizations, broadcasters, and advertisers), public health activist organizations, researchers, and journalists view the process of federal-level alcohol policymaking. While there are considerable differences in problem-framing strategies and paradigms, alcohol policymakers view the dynamics in ways consistent with political scientists' theories based on general health policy. Insights gained have the potential to improve understanding of public policymaking in the alcohol area and could help to advance public health policy objectives.

Keywords

Alcohol policy United States federal government

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anglin

Johnson

Giesbrecht

& Greenfield

T. G.

(2000). Alcohol policy content analysis: A comparison of public health and trade newsletters. Drug and Alcohol Review, 19, 203–212.

Babor

Caetano

Casswell

Edwards

Giesbrecht

Graham

Grube

Gruenewald

Hill

Holder

Homel

Österberg

Rehm

Room

and Rossow

(2003). Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity. Research and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Denzin

N. K.

& Lincoln

Y. S.

(eds.) (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Edwards

Anderson

Babor

T. F.

Casswell

Ferrence

Giesbrecht

(1994). Alcohol Policy and the Public Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ennett

S. T.

Tobler

N. S.

Ringwalt

C. L.

& Flewelling

R. L.

(1994). How effective is drug abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of project DARE outcome evaluation. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1394–1401.

Giesbrecht

& Greenfield

T. K.

(1999). Public opinions on alcohol policy issues: A comparison of American and Canadian surveys. Addiction, 94(4), 521–531.

Giesbrecht

(2003). Preventing alcohol-related problems in the US through policy: Media campaigns, regulatory approaches and environmental interventions. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24(1), 63–104.

Greenfield

T. K.

(1997a). Alcoholism, alcohol problems, and social policies. In Shelton

W. N.

& Edwards

R. B.

(eds.), Values, Ethics, and Alcoholism. Advances in Bioethics (Vol. 3, pp. 221–256). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Greenfield

T. K.

(1997b). Warning labels: Evidence of harm reduction from long-term American surveys. In Plant

Single

& Stockwell

(eds.), Alcohol: Minimizing the Harm (pp. 105–125). London: Free Association Books.

10.

Greenfield

T. K.

Giesbrecht

N. A.

Johnson

S. P.

Kaskutas

L. A.

Anglin

L. T.

Kavanagh

(1999). U.S. Federal Alcohol Control Policy Development: A Manual. Berkeley, CA: Alcohol Research Group.

11.

Greenfield

T. K.

Giesbrecht

N. A.

Kaskutas

L. A.

Johnson

Kavanagh

& Anglin

(2004a). A study of the alcohol policy development process in the United States: Theory, goals and methods. Contemporary Drug Problems 31, 591–626 [this issue].

12.

Greenfield

T. K.

Johnson

S. P.

& Giesbrecht

N. A.

(2004b). Public opinion on alcohol policy: A review of U.S. research. Contemporary Drug Problems 31, 759–790 [this issue].

13.

Greenfield

T. K.

& Hilton

(1994). Warning labels on alcoholic beverage containers in the United States, 38th Annual International Institute on the Prevention and Treatment of Alcoholism, International Council on Alcohol and Addictions.

14.

Harwood

H. J.

Fountain

& Livermore

(1998). Economic costs of alcohol abuse and alcoholism. Recent Developments in Alcoholism, 14, 307–330.

15.

Johnson

Greenfield

T. K.

Giesbrecht

Kaskutas

L. A.

& Anglin

(2004). The role of research in the development of U.S. federal alcohol control policy. Contemporary Drug Problems 31, 737–758 [this issue].

16.

Kaskutas

L. A.

(1995). Interpretations of risk: The use of scientific information in the development of the alcohol warning label policy. International Journal of the Addictions, 30(12), 1519–1548.

17.

Kingdon

J. W.

(1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: HarperCollins.

18.

Kingdon

J. W.

(1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

19.

Lemmens

P. H.

Vaeth

P. A. C.

& Greenfield

T. K.

(1999). Coverage of beverage alcohol issues in the print media in the US, 1985–1991. American Journal of Public Health, 89(10), 1555–1560.

20.

Moskowitz

(1993). Why reports of outcome evaluations are often biased or uninterpretable: Examples from evaluations of drug abuse prevention programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 16, 1–9.

21.

Public Law No. 100–690 (1988). Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988. Washington, DC: 100th Congress, 2nd session.

22.

Richards

T. J.

& Richards

(1991). The NUD*IST qualitative data analysis system. Qualitative Sociology, 14(4), 307–324.

23.

Room

Graves

Giesbrecht

& Greenfield

T. K.

(1995). Trends in public opinion about alcohol policy initiatives in Ontario and the U.S.: 1989–91. Drug and Alcohol Review, 14, 35–47.

The Alcohol Policy Development Process: Policymakers Speak

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References