“Please Wait, Your Policy is Important to Us” issue prioritization, the ACF, and Canada’s failed attempts at cannabis decriminalization, 2003–2005

IF 3.8 3区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Policy Sciences Pub Date : 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1007/s11077-024-09545-6
B. Timothy Heinmiller
{"title":"“Please Wait, Your Policy is Important to Us” issue prioritization, the ACF, and Canada’s failed attempts at cannabis decriminalization, 2003–2005","authors":"B. Timothy Heinmiller","doi":"10.1007/s11077-024-09545-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In Canada, in the early 2000s, the decriminalization of cannabis for recreational use seemed imminent. Between 2003 and 2005, three government decriminalization bills were introduced in the Canadian House of Commons, but none were adopted, and decriminalization efforts were abandoned. Subsequently, Canada went beyond decriminalization and legalized recreational cannabis in 2018. This paper examines why the Canadian decriminalization efforts failed, using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and ACF policy change theory. Three ACF-based hypotheses to explain the failed reform attempts are developed and investigated, but none are empirically supported. A fourth hypothesis is developed using information processing insights from Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) but adapted to the ACF. This hypothesis is empirically supported showing that Canada’s decriminalization efforts failed, despite a supportive advocacy coalition, favourable conditions in the cannabis policy subsystem and favourable conditions in the Canadian political system, because its systemic advocates did not give it priority relative to other issues from other subsystems. This finding has implications for ACF policy change theory, identifying a necessary condition for major policy change that has been potentially overlooked, and illustrates the potential for cross-fertilization between PET and ACF theories of policy change.</p>","PeriodicalId":51433,"journal":{"name":"Policy Sciences","volume":"303 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09545-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Canada, in the early 2000s, the decriminalization of cannabis for recreational use seemed imminent. Between 2003 and 2005, three government decriminalization bills were introduced in the Canadian House of Commons, but none were adopted, and decriminalization efforts were abandoned. Subsequently, Canada went beyond decriminalization and legalized recreational cannabis in 2018. This paper examines why the Canadian decriminalization efforts failed, using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and ACF policy change theory. Three ACF-based hypotheses to explain the failed reform attempts are developed and investigated, but none are empirically supported. A fourth hypothesis is developed using information processing insights from Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) but adapted to the ACF. This hypothesis is empirically supported showing that Canada’s decriminalization efforts failed, despite a supportive advocacy coalition, favourable conditions in the cannabis policy subsystem and favourable conditions in the Canadian political system, because its systemic advocates did not give it priority relative to other issues from other subsystems. This finding has implications for ACF policy change theory, identifying a necessary condition for major policy change that has been potentially overlooked, and illustrates the potential for cross-fertilization between PET and ACF theories of policy change.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"请稍候,您的政策对我们很重要",2003-2005 年期间议题的优先次序、ACF 以及加拿大在大麻非刑罪化方面的失败尝试
在加拿大,2000 年代初,娱乐用大麻非刑罪化似乎迫在眉睫。2003 年至 2005 年间,加拿大下议院提出了三项政府非刑罪化法案,但均未获通过,非刑罪化努力也随之放弃。随后,加拿大超越了非刑罪化,于 2018 年实现了娱乐用大麻合法化。本文利用倡导联盟框架(ACF)和ACF政策变革理论,研究了加拿大非刑罪化努力失败的原因。本文提出并研究了三个基于 ACF 的假设来解释改革尝试失败的原因,但没有一个假设得到经验支持。第四个假说是利用 "动力平衡理论"(Punctuated Equilibrium Theory,PET)中的信息处理见解提出的,但该理论也适用于 "倡导联盟框架"。这一假设得到了经验支持,表明加拿大的非刑罪化努力失败了,尽管有一个支持性的倡导联盟、大麻政策子系统中的有利条件以及加拿大政治体系中的有利条件,这是因为相对于其他子系统中的其他问题,其系统倡导者没有给予非刑罪化优先考虑。这一发现对 ACF 政策变革理论具有启示意义,它确定了可能被忽视的重大政策变革的必要条件,并说明了 PET 和 ACF 政策变革理论之间相互促进的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Policy Sciences
Policy Sciences Multiple-
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
9.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The policy sciences are distinctive within the policy movement in that they embrace the scholarly traditions innovated and elaborated by Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal. Within these pages we provide space for approaches that are problem-oriented, contextual, and multi-method in orientation. There are many other journals in which authors can take top-down, deductive, and large-sample approach or adopt a primarily theoretical focus. Policy Sciences encourages systematic and empirical investigations in which problems are clearly identified from a practical and theoretical perspective, are well situated in the extant literature, and are investigated utilizing methodologies compatible with contextual, as opposed to reductionist, understandings. We tend not to publish pieces that are solely theoretical, but favor works in which the applied policy lessons are clearly articulated. Policy Sciences favors, but does not publish exclusively, works that either explicitly or implicitly utilize the policy sciences framework. The policy sciences can be applied to articles with greater or lesser intensity to accommodate the focus of an author’s work. At the minimum, this means taking a problem oriented, multi-method or contextual approach. At the fullest expression, it may mean leveraging central theory or explicitly applying aspects of the framework, which is comprised of three principal dimensions: (1) social process, which is mapped in terms of participants, perspectives, situations, base values, strategies, outcomes and effects, with values (power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, rectitude, respect, well-being, and affection) being the key elements in understanding participants’ behaviors and interactions; (2) decision process, which is mapped in terms of seven functions—intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and appraisal; and (3) problem orientation, which comprises the intellectual tasks of clarifying goals, describing trends, analyzing conditions, projecting developments, and inventing, evaluating, and selecting alternatives. There is a more extensive core literature that also applies and can be visited at the policy sciences website: http://www.policysciences.org/classicworks.cfm. In addition to articles that explicitly utilize the policy sciences framework, Policy Sciences has a long tradition of publishing papers that draw on various aspects of that framework and its central theory as well as high quality conceptual pieces that address key challenges, opportunities, or approaches in ways congruent with the perspective that this journal strives to maintain and extend.Officially cited as: Policy Sci
期刊最新文献
Emancipatory policy sciences or interpretative revisionism: some thoughts on Douglas Torgerson’s The Policy Sciences of Harold Lasswell Breaking away from family control? Collaboration among political organisations and social media endorsement among their constituents Shattering stereotypes and the critical lasswell The legacy of Harold D. Lasswell’s commitment to the policy sciences of democracy: observations on Douglas Torgerson’s the policy sciences of Harold Lasswell Co-design in policymaking: from an emerging to an embedded practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1