Policy analysis perspective: understanding atypical changes

In her research on drug policy change in Portugal and Australia, Hughes (2007) argues that despite the recognition that policies are driven by both incremental and atypical reforms, there are few theories that seek to differentiate and explain both processes. The three most notable exceptions that will be

used in this thesis are Kingdon's Multiple Strea P E M

(True et al., 2007) and the Advocacy Coalition Framework developed by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993). Incremental reform is the norm, but atypical change is also possible. Yet, since atypical changes imply a deep questioning of the way we understand a political issue, they are unlikely to be the result of a merely rational evaluation of interests, information and knowledge available. Conversely, they are seen as an arena where emotional and value biases are equally important causal contributors.

Hence, this literature argues for the necessity of including these types of constraints in the information-processing capacities when trying to explain atypical change.

The starting point in Multiple Streams theory comes from a rather simple observation: the mere existence of a problem is unlikely to provoke atypical changes unless the problem is recognised, the political climate is receptive, and a policy proposal or solution is available. Each of these streams spurs or constrains policy change by placing a proposal on or off the agenda (Kingdon, 1995).

More specifically, problems are defined as public matters requiring attention, which may or may not get defined as important. Given that no objective fact constitutes a problem in and of itself, it is important to analyse the sources of the issues that are added to the political agenda, as well as the perceptions and values of the actors concerned which shape how a problem is defined. Thereby, exploring the translation of individual issues into social problems and then into public problems or matters of political controversy.

How problems are defined and publicly recognized is not only important by itself but also because it shapes suitable solutions to it. More generally, policies are proposals for change based on the accumulation of knowledge and development of interest among specialists in a policy sector. As scepticism regarding the success of the prohibitionist approach has grown, new voices started to assert the necessity of debating and evaluating alternative solutions to the drugs problem. Yet, as reviewed in the previous chapter (see section 2.3), there is not necessarily a consensus regarding what

e and different types of systems have been experimented with worldwide.

Lastly, the political process determines the pertinent actors involved in the debate, and how these actors try to influence the perception of the problems and provide specific solutions to them. There is an ongoing controversy in the literature about Uruguayan reform regarding this issue. Authors such as Pardo (2014) and Repetto (2014) have defined Uruguayan cannabis regulation mainly as a top- down initiative. Thus, for example, in the comparative analysis of Washington, Colorado (US) and U three important things to note about Uruguay [is that the] regulatory reform is a government-led initiative, not a public referendum. According to polls, the

public is not in favour of this policy change P C C

(2014), Walsh and Ramsey (2015), Von Hoffmann (2015) and Arocena and Aguiar (2017) have contended for a more protagonist role of civil society, highlighting the importance of actors other than politicians themselves to fully understand the regulation process.

Having differentiated between problem definition, solution building and political process (actors and strategies), understanding cannabis regulation requires analysing the circumstances under which these different streams combine to make a policy happen. Furthermore, the linking of these streams depends on the presence of policy windows and policy entrepreneurs (Kingdon, 1995).

Policy windows refer to contexts of opportunity for advocates to press home their ideas, either triggered by the appearance of a particularly problematic, visible or compelling problem or by happenings in the political stream -such as a new administration in power (John, 1998). Capitalising upon these emerging opportunities requires the presence of policy entrepreneurs to link the three streams, attaching and re-framing policy proposals to fit emerging circumstances. In other words, it is

about finding an available, rather H P

identified the importance of this type of actor leading cannabis reform both at the governmental level -as in the case of the Netherlands- or within civil society -as in the cases of Spain and the US-. Like a entrepreneurs are ready to paddle, and their readiness combined with their sense for riding the wave and using the forces beyond their control contributes to success K

T P E M T e et al., 2007) bears some resemblance to the previous one, yet questions the streams approach in three major ways: emphasising the emotive elements of problem definition, the role of mobilisation, and the attention shifts provoked by the issue's expansion into the macro political agenda. From this perspective, atypical change is built not only over a disagreement in the proper way to describe or understand the cannabis problem, as Multiple Streams theory implies, but also in the set of images attached to it that is, a mixture of empirical information and emotive appeals. In terms of politics moral foundations theory introduced above, cannabis problem definition would involve competing ways to link cannabis to certain moral foundations. More precisely, it is expected for conservative policy positions to be related with ideas of fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Conversely, defining cannabis as a liberty and care problem will be expected to be associated with more progressive political positions.

A P E M -established

image and the corresponding policy venue where authoritative decisions about cannabis policy are made can be redefined. There are two main methods for this: (i) mass mobilisation, aimed at successively broadening advocacy efforts to mobilise larger and larger groups, beginning with

specialists and working to eventually include the general public; and (ii) strategic venue shifting. In this

venue

shopping by strategically minded political actors B J I mobilisation destabilizes a current policy equilibrium by beyond its traditional venue (Robinson, 2014).

Yet, Jones (1994) argues that atypical cannabis change does not spring from rapid flip-flops of preferences or from basic irrationality (choosing to go against your own preferences); they spring from shifts in attention. Typically, cannabis policy-making operates out of the political spotlight, dominated by a single interest with a policy monopoly, which has a definable institutional structure responsible for the decision-making in an issue area. Thus, for example, as reported by Garat (2012) the 1976 South American Agreement on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances that defined the regional blueprint for a legislative harmonisation to the 1961 and 1971 international conventions was made behind closed doors and without much public discussion around it. Whereas doctors, lawyers and police forces had a leading role shaping this legal framework, cannabis users themselves hardly had a voice in the political process, a fact also noted for other countries (see for example Stevens, 2011;

Arana & Del Olmo, 1996). When mobilisation occurs, new participants become interested in the debate, the agreed-upon images and authoritative venues become contested, and eventually a policy shift may occur towards macro-political institutions. When an issue is on the macro-political agenda, small changes in objective circumstances can cause large changes in policy, in a process of positive feedback (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993).

In this way, whereas the idea of Multiple Streams policy windows implies entrepreneurs negotiating and re-framing policy proposals to fit emerging circumstances, Punctuated Equilibrium argues that

atypical changes break into the macro-

These chaotic moments of punctuation, characterised as communication turmoil, are usually a disproportionate response to the specific event that triggered it, fuelled by heightened attentiveness by the media and broader public, and disputes over new dimensions of the debate becoming more salient. However, since attention spans are limited, controversy over an issue is a necessary but not sufficient condition for atypical reform to happen; if the citizens excluded from a monopoly i.e.

cannabis users- remain apathetic, the institutional arrangement usually remains constant, and policy is likely to change only slowly and incrementally in a process of negative feedback. Thus, from this perspective, it is only when an issue breaks into the public light and the ways in which the problem is defined become contested by the involvement of new actors in the political arena, that atypical change becomes possible (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993).

In contrast with the reviewed theories, the last middle ground theory used in this thesis the Advocacy Coalition Framework developed by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith in 1993- contends that political processes are driven not only by individual actors but mainly by groups coordinating actions over time, for atypical change to happen.

Previous works on drug policy have successfully applied this concept to analyse policy change. It has

K “ H

H

Portugal and the Australian Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative. Von Hoffmann (2015), Castro (2014) and Repetto (2014) have also found evidence of this type of dynamic in their analysis of the Uruguayan

V H a strong and diverse advocacy coalition, consisting of

cannabis activists, legislators, members of the executive and international actors, came into

being and successfull P M

H 11).

A

system that defines how a given public problem and the suitable solution to it are framed. More specifically, advocacy coalitions will tend to share a deep core of fundamental normative and ontological axioms, which define a vision of the individual, society and the world. Different normative foundations will be associated with a policy core of causal perceptions, basic strategies and policy positions for achieving those deep core beliefs. Lastly, secondary aspects would comprise instrumental considerations on how to implement the policy core (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993).

In this thesis, I propose that by engaging moral foundations theory we can take the advocacy coalitions

they

vary across and within societies. As Figure 3 displays, this reformulated version of the Advocacy

C

divides groups, binding and blinding political actors. The moral foundations apply for all political areas, and within any given culture, cannabis politics controversies would involve competing ways to link cannabis to these foundations. As it was previously discussed, believing that cannabis use is ultimately a personal freedom or alternatively an authority problem is a political stand highly unlikely to be changed by scientific evidence or knowledge available. These different normative foundations will be associated with a of causal perceptions, basic strategies and policy positions for achieving those deep core beliefs, specific to the policy area of interest. Thus, if cannabis use is framed as a personal freedom matter then logically cannabis policies cannot be targeted to punish its users, but to benefit them through health improvements. If, on the contrary, it is framed as an authority problem, then the law may be considered as a tool to reassure the limits of what is right and wrong to do. Thereby, if cannabis is risky and harmful people cannot have a right to use it. Changes at this level are still difficult but can occur, particularly by compelling close experiences or continued serious

L

decisions on how to implement those goals. If, for example, cannabis is appealed to as a holy herb and not just as a regular consumer good, then a legal regulation with private profit restrictions might be considered necessary. Instrumental decisions are specific to the drugs area and its susceptibility to change is moderately easy, usually involving technical and administrative issues. Within and between advocacy coalitions, policy brokers are actors mediating in the debate, undertaking the important role

the problem among the parts for the coalition not to dissolve.

Figure 4. Structure of the Belief System of Advocacy Coalitions

Deep (Normative) Core Near (Policy) Core Secondary Aspects

Defining Source: Adapted from Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999, p. 31)

Since the belief system is hierarchically organised, actors tend to reject information that questions core beliefs; hence, policy-oriented learning is most likely to concern only secondary aspects of a belief system. Thus, for atypical drug policy change to happen, the presence of that change power relations within a subsystem or shift public attention (and thus resources) toward or away from a policy subsystem become necessary. These external events are loosely categorised as: (i) major socioeconomic changes; (ii) changes in public opinion; (iii) changes in the systemic governing coalition;

and (iv) policy decisions and impacts from other subsystems. Yet, even if defined as external, it is not these events by themselves but their interpretation and exploitation with greater or lesser skill by the coalition that matters, for policy change to happen (Kubler, 2001; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993).

In this thesis, I will argue that although previous research on drug policy change has provided a convincing picture of the importance of advocacy coalitions for the cannabis reform, they portray an overly optimistic narrative of the collective dynamics involved, overlooking both the conflicts within groups as well as the strategies displayed to deal with them. More generally, although atypical change theories have the virtue of pointing to values and beliefs as an important factor informing drug policy making, this is a category that has been theoretically in the literature. Most of the time, researchers just assume it exists, yet they overlook its actual empirical derivations (Ripberger et al., 2014). As it was explained, this thesis aims to make a theoretical contribution in this regard by engaging with the moral politics perspective as a way to specify further missing elements in atypical

A C

alternative sources of resistance and promotion of change.