The role of coalitions in drug policy. Some theoretical and observational considerations.

Authors

  • Ambros Uchtenhagen Research Institute for Public Health and Addiction. Zurich. Switzerland. Enviar correspondencia a: Ambros Uchtenhagen. Research Institute for Public Health and Addiction. P.O. Box CH-8031. Zurich

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20882/adicciones.142

Keywords:

urban drug policy, case study, coalition building, societal learning, actor network theory

Abstract

Democratically organised societies have to find ways how to proceed when in need of a reformulation of strategies in face of new societal and technological developments, especially in dealing with controversial preferences and interests. The area of drug policy change presents an excellent example for discussing the problem and the process of coalition building for finding acceptable answers to new challenges. Modern sociological theory has developed concepts and tools for a description and analysis of such processes. Some concrete case studies from Swiss cities are available as a basis for advanced discussion of theoretical concepts. The observational description of the coalition building in the city of Zurich helps to illustrate the inherent elements, problems and outcomes; a more detailed process analysis focuses on the initial phases and further development of the various formal and informal coalitions, introducing the importance of shared objectives for action and the need for concerted activities. A clear policy concept and a consistent action plan were not available at first, but they proved to be an important step in the consolidation of what was a non-systematic beginning. What started at local level and led to a new national policy was not so much a continued clash between two ideologies – harm reduction versus strict prohibition -, but was the beginning of a new thinking about how the various policy elements could successfully work together in the pursuit of a shared concrete objective. These observations may be considered in further theory development and policy considerations.

References

Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an Uncertain World. An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

DCD (2005). Democracy, Cities and Drugs project 2005-2007 (www.

democitydrug.org).

DCDII (2011). Democracy, Cities and Drugs project 2008-2011. (www.

democitydrug.org).

EU (2008). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on an EU Drugs Action Plan for 2009-2012. COM (2008) 567/4. Brussels 18.9.2008.

Freeman, L. (2006). The Development of Social Network Analysis. Vancouver: Empirical Press.

Grob, P. (2010). Zürcher “Needle Park” Ein Stück Drogengeschichte und

–politik 1968-2008 (The needle-park in Zurich. A lesson in drug history and –policy 1968-2008). Zürich: Chronos.

Kübler, D. (1999) Beyond nimbyism. Urban conflict resolution in Swiss drug policies, in U. Khan (ed.), Participation Beyond the Ballot Box. European Case Studies in State–Citizen Dialogue (pp. 43–64). London: UCL Press.

Kübler, D. (2000). Politique de la drogue dans les villes suisses entre

ordre et santé. Analyse des conflits de mise en oeuvre, Paris: L’Harmattan.

Kübler, D. (2001). Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition framework: an application to Swiss Drug Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8:623–641.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-

Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Law, J. & Hassard J. (eds) (1999). Actor Network Theory and After.

Oxford: Blackwell.

May, C., Mair, F.S., Finch, T., MacFarlane, A., Dowrick, C., Treweek, S.,

Rapley, T., Ballini, L., et al. (2009). Development of a theory of

implementation and integration: Normalization Process Theory.

Implementation Science 4: 29.

Prague Declaration (2011). On the principles of effective urban drug

policies. Presented and adopted at the Prague Conference on Urban Drug Policies in a Globalised World Sept 2010 (www.drugpolicy.com).

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, Free

Press.

Sabatier, P.A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: revisions

and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 5: 98–130.

Serduelt, U. (2000). Politiknetzwerke in der städtischen Drogenpolitik von Bern, Chur, St. Gallen und Zürich (Policy networks for urban drug policies in Bern, Chur, St. Gallen and Zurich). PhD Thesis, University of Zurich.

Uchtenhagen, A. (2010). Heroin-assisted treatment in Switzerland: a case study in policy change. Addiction 105:29-37

Waddell, S. (2005). Societal learning and Change. Sheffield UK: Greenleaf Publishing.

Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating Models of Diffusion of Innovations: A Conceptual Framework. Annual Review of Sociology (Annual Reviews) 28: 297–306.

WHO (2001) World Health Report 2001. Mental Health: New understanding, new hope. Geneva, World Health Organisation.

Published

2011-09-01

Issue

Section

Editorial