Untitled Flashcards Set

Healthcare case study

What are the main events between December 2013 until June 2014

What is the public policy?

-          SA (Stakeholder Analyses/stake holder matrix) =)

Key Events:

1.        December 2013 – The first known case of Ebola is identified in Guinea (Patient Zero: 18-month-old Emile Ouamouno).

2.        Arrival of investigative team January 21^st

3.        January 2014 – The disease spreads within Guinea, initially mistaken for cholera.

4.        February 2014 – The virus reaches Conakry, Guinea’s capital, and unknowingly spreads further.

5.        WHO AFRO invoked their emergency management system 13^th of March -) investigation

6.        Reporting the findings to WHO: it is an Ebola virus (March 21^st)

7.        March 2014 – WHO confirms the outbreak as Ebola on March 21 and issues an alert on March 23.

8.        April 2014 – Ebola spreads to Sierra Leone and Liberia; WHO downplays the crisis, while MSF warns of an "unprecedented" outbreak.

9.        May 2014 – Temporary decline in cases leads to false confidence that the outbreak is under control.

10.     June 2014 – Ebola resurges, spreading rapidly in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. WHO holds a meeting on June 23 but still does not declare a global emergency.

What is Public Policy?

1. Inadequate Early Detection & Response

•                Problem: The delayed identification and response to Ebola allowed the outbreak to spread unchecked for months.

•                Policy Gap: Weak disease surveillance systems and ineffective International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005) failed to trigger a timely global response.

•                Impact: The outbreak escalated, leading to over 11,000 deaths and severe economic consequences.

2. Weak Health Systems in Affected Countries

•                Problem: Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia lacked the necessary healthcare infrastructure, trained personnel, and medical supplies to contain the outbreak.

•                Policy Gap: Limited investment in public health systems and reliance on external organizations (e.g., WHO, MSF) made national responses inadequate.

•                Impact: Governments struggled to provide isolation facilities, treatment centers, and protective gear for healthcare workers, worsening the crisis.

3. Poor Public Awareness & Misinformation

•                Problem: Communities resisted medical interventions due to fear, misinformation, and cultural beliefs, leading to attacks on health workers and unsafe burial practices.

•                Policy Gap: Lack of effective communication strategies and engagement with local leaders resulted in widespread mistrust.

•                Impact: Many infected individuals hid their symptoms or avoided medical care, accelerating virus transmission.

4. Lack of International Coordination & Delayed WHO Action

•                Problem: WHO and international organizations failed to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) early enough, delaying critical funding and global intervention.

•                Policy Gap: WHO’s bureaucratic structure and political hesitations slowed response efforts.

•                Impact: Thousands of preventable deaths and the eventual need for major emergency interventions (e.g., UN Mission for Ebola Emergency Response - UNMEER in September 2014)

Global poverty alleviation policy

·       Use of policy framing

·       Religious incentives -) helping the poor, 2000 birthday of Jesus

·       Sense of urgency

·       Depths wont be paid anyway so we should forget them -) the countries could then invest in education/health and therefore avoid future indebtment

·       Lobbying (people and celebrities=very influential)

·       Veto power -) creating pressure (shaming)

·       Need to be seen a s a contributor to global community (Japan)

·       The message reaching everyone both people and legislators

·       Use of media

·       Importance of the nature of the issue and vulnerability of the targets

·       Don’t have policies strongly aligned with parties

Anti-smoking policy

1)      Backgrounds

o   Mexico: 2021-2022 Tobacco Control Wins: Enacted comprehensive laws, establishing 100% smoke-free environments and banning tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship.

o   Poland: In 1995, Poland implemented one of the world’s strongest tobacco control laws, which included:

1.           Bans on smoking in public places (health centers, schools, workplaces).

2.           A ban on tobacco sales to minors (under 18 years).

3.           Strict advertising restrictions, including a ban on electronic media advertising.

4.           Health warnings on cigarette packs covering 30% of the packaging—the largest at the time.

5.           Free smoking cessation programs.

o   Indonesia: The first major regulation, Government Regulation (PP) 109/2012, was adopted in 2012. This regulation introduced pictorial health warnings (40%) on cigarette packs and some restrictions on tobacco advertising. However, it remained weakly enforced and contained many loopholes.

Sub-national policies: Some local governments have implemented smoke-free regulations and partial advertising bans, but these policies are not uniform across the country.

Tax increases: The Indonesian government announced a 23% tobacco tax increase in 2019 (effective 2020), but cigarette taxes remain among the lowest in the world.

2)

è Tabacco companies

è Health ministry

è General public

è Government

è WHO

3)

Traditional tools

à sermons: preaching, public campaigns

Information provision

o   Mexico and Poland: Extensive media campaigns highlighting the dangers of smoking.

o   Indonesia: Limited and inconsistent communication efforts, often overshadowed by pro-tobacco advertising.

o   Regulation: ban of tabacco advertising (sticks)

Mexico: Comprehensive regulation banning smoking in all public spaces and full advertising restrictions.

Poland: Early adoption of groundbreaking legislation in the 1990s, including health warnings and advertising bans.

è Incentives: negative (carrots)

o   Poland: Increased tobacco taxes, reducing affordability.

o   Mexico: No significant tax increases but focused on enforcement of smoke-free environments.

Modern tools

è Nudging and Behavioral Approaches:

o   Mexico: Used choice architecture in mass media campaigns to promote smoke-free environments as the "default" social norm.

Information age-technology including algorithmic government = catered sermons by algorithm

è Tailored social media campaigns

4) |Specify the policy design elements

1. Regulation (Sticks)

A. Indonesia

• Target Group: Tobacco industry, national and sub-national policymakers, and individual smokers.

• Settings of the Instrument: Weak setting, with partial advertising bans and smoke-free regulations that contain significant loopholes.

• Theory of Change: Reduce tobacco consumption through legal restrictions on advertising and public smoking, making smoking less visible and socially acceptable.

• Unintended Consequences: Fragmentation due to decentralized governance; corruption and industry interference weakened enforcement. Sub-national differences led to inconsistent outcomes.

B. Mexico

• Target Group: General population (particularly non-smokers and youth), businesses (bars, restaurants, media).

• Settings of the Instrument: Moderate to strong setting, with comprehensive smoke-free laws and a complete advertising ban.

• Theory of Change: Protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke and reduce youth exposure to tobacco advertising to prevent smoking initiation.

• Unintended Consequences: Initial delays in implementing regulations due to industry lobbying; resistance from businesses affected by the smoking ban.

C. Poland

• Target Group: Smokers (particularly adults and youth) and the media.

• Settings of the Instrument: Strong setting, with strict advertising bans, large health warnings, and smoking restrictions in public spaces.

• Theory of Change: Discourage smoking by reducing its visibility and affordability, while increasing public awareness of health risks.

• Unintended Consequences: Economic concerns from tobacco farmers and businesses; some early resistance from the media and industry.

2. Incentives (Carrots & Disincentives)

A. Indonesia

• Target Group: Smokers and tobacco producers.

• Settings of the Instrument: Low disincentive setting, with one of the lowest tobacco taxes globally.

• Theory of Change: Increase tobacco prices to reduce affordability and consumption.

• Unintended Consequences: Minimal impact due to low tax rates; continued high prevalence of smoking, especially among low-income groups.

B. Mexico

• Target Group: Businesses and smokers.

• Settings of the Instrument: Moderate disincentive setting, with an emphasis on smoke-free environments over tax increases.

• Theory of Change: Create smoke-free spaces as the default environment, discouraging smoking in public.

• Unintended Consequences: Increased compliance costs for businesses; occasional public backlash against enforcement.

C. Poland

• Target Group: Smokers and tobacco retailers.

• Settings of the Instrument: High disincentive setting, with significant tax increases and higher cigarette prices.

• Theory of Change: Reduce smoking prevalence by making tobacco products less affordable.

• Unintended Consequences: Initial public dissatisfaction, but long-term health and economic benefits.

3. Information Provision (Sermons)

A. Indonesia

• Target Group: General public and policymakers.

• Settings of the Instrument: Limited setting, with inconsistent anti-smoking campaigns.

• Theory of Change: Increase public awareness of health risks to encourage smoking cessation and prevent initiation.

• Unintended Consequences: Tobacco industry counter-campaigns diluted public health messages, preserving social acceptance of smoking.

B. Mexico

• Target Group: Non-smokers, youth, and policymakers.

• Settings of the Instrument: Comprehensive setting, with mass media campaigns and targeted social media outreach.

• Theory of Change: Build public support for tobacco control policies and shift social norms against smoking.

• Unintended Consequences: Over-reliance on media campaigns may not reach some rural populations effectively.

C. Poland

• Target Group: Smokers and youth.

• Settings of the Instrument: Comprehensive setting, with health education campaigns and annual "Great Polish Smoke-Out" events.

• Theory of Change: Motivate smokers to quit by highlighting health risks and providing cessation resources.

• Unintended Consequences: High visibility led to increased resistance from the tobacco industry.

4. Modern Instruments (Nudging & Public-Private Partnerships)

A. Indonesia

• Target Group: Not effectively targeted.

• Settings of the Instrument: Minimal setting, with little use of behavioral approaches or public-private partnerships.

• Theory of Change: N/A

• Unintended Consequences: Lack of nudging or strategic partnerships limited the success of public health efforts.

B. Mexico

• Target Group: Youth, policymakers, and general population.

• Settings of the Instrument: Strong setting, with behavioral approaches (nudging) in media campaigns and public-private partnerships with organizations like Vital Strategies.

• Theory of Change: Shift social norms to make smoke-free environments the default, increasing voluntary compliance.

• Unintended Consequences: Potential overemphasis on nudging without complementary regulatory support in rural areas.

C. Poland

• Target Group: Smokers and policymakers.

• Settings of the Instrument: Moderate setting, with partnerships between health-focused NGOs and international organizations.

• Theory of Change: Strengthen tobacco control advocacy and capacity building through collaboration.

• Unintended Consequences: Dependency on external support for long-term sustainability.

6)

Poland: Policy Implications

Poland's case highlights that strong government commitment, public health campaigns, and strict regulations can reverse the tobacco epidemic. The country became a model for tobacco control in Europe, influencing EU policies on cigarette packaging and advertising bans.

What explains variation: strong division of responsibilities in the government, strong campaigns, strongly enforced laws

Mexico: Public Policy Impact:

These reforms mark a major public health victory, expected to reduce smoking prevalence, protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke, and save lives. Mexico now has one of the strictest tobacco control policies in Latin America, showcasing the power of sustained advocacy, evidence-based policymaking, and government collaboration.

What explains variation: strong division of responsibilities in the government, strong campaigns, strongly enforced laws

Mexico: Sustaining and Strengthening Recent Gains

Indonesia: impact close to non due to corruption, power of tabacco companies, unclear division of responsibilities in the government, cigarettes are imbedded in the culture, non competent of the ministry of health

Policy learning/transfer:
Mexico and Poland: Adopted best practices from WHO and other international frameworks.

Indonesia: Has yet to fully implement lessons from successful cases like Mexico and Poland.

7)

nudges

1.       Altering the psychological behaviour and consumer behaviour so cigarettes are associated with death and bad health

2.       Unavailability

3.       Disgusting packaging (pictures, quotes, colours) à countdown to death “this package could be your last one”

Algorithmic governance: Indonesia should apply the policies used by Mexico and Poland like social media campaigns

AI and machine learning: testing policy mechanism for efficiency and efficacy

Owaho FIA

1)      Chronology of Events in the Owaho Forest Controversy (draw)

1. 1982 – The last Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) survey for Owaho is completed.

2. 1982–1994 – Logging activities continue, with concerns emerging over sustainability.

3. Early 1990s – The Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups, forms to advocate for stricter logging regulations in Owaho.

4. 1994 – A new FIA survey for Owaho begins, delayed due to budget constraints.

5. Early 1995 – John Waxman, a former timber executive, is appointed as Owaho’s state forester. He opposes additional logging regulations.

6. Late 1995 – The Alliance pushes for a referendum to limit clear-cutting, gathering signatures to place the issue on the November 1996 ballot.

7. November 1995 – Petra Johnson, a USFS official overseeing the FIA study, is contacted by reporter Sandy Beuller, requesting preliminary data.

8. November 1995 – Preliminary results for three northern counties indicate logging has outpaced growth by a 3-to-1 margin.

9. November–December 1995 –

   • State Forester Waxman expresses concerns that the data will be misinterpreted and resists early release.

   • The Alliance and the media demand access to the preliminary results.

   • Petra faces pressure from both sides: Waxman wants data withheld until the full report is completed (expected October 1996), while the Alliance and press push for early disclosure.

2)      Policy to be implemented

The policy to be implemented is a clear-cutting ban in Owaho’s forests. This policy is being pushed through a public referendum, which aims to regulate logging by limiting tree removal to a maximum of ¼ acre per cut.

3)      Stakeholders

1. Government Agencies

• U.S. Forest Service (USFS) – Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program

  • Role: Provides scientific data on forest conditions.

  • Interest: Ensuring accurate, unbiased data collection and maintaining credibility as a neutral research entity.

  • Influence: Controls data dissemination and the timing of report publication.

• Owaho Forest Service (State-Level Agency)

  • Role: Manages and oversees forest resources in the state.

  • Interest: Balancing economic interests (logging industry) and conservation efforts while maintaining authority over state forest policy.

  • Influence: Holds regulatory power over forest management practices.

  • John Waxman (State Forester)

    • Role: Appointed official overseeing Owaho's forests.

    • Interest: Opposes additional regulations, favors self-regulation by the timber industry.

    • Influence: Can influence policy decisions and state agency actions.3. Industry Stakeholders

3. The Logging Industry ("The Industry")

• Role: Owns 43% of Owaho’s forest land and conducts logging operations.

• Interest: Preventing regulations that would reduce profitability (such as banning clear-cutting).

• Influence: Strong economic and political influence, lobbying efforts, and potential legal action against restrictive policies.

4. Environmental Advocacy Groups ("The Alliance")

• Coalition of Environmental Organizations (Sierra Club, Audubon Society, etc.)

  • Role: Advocates for forest conservation and logging restrictions.

  • Interest: Ensuring sustainable forest management, supporting the clear-cutting ban, and possibly creating a national/state park.

  • Influence: Mobilizes public opinion, gathers signatures for the referendum, and pressures policymakers.

5. Media and Public Opinion

• Journalists (e.g., Sandy Beuller of the Owaho Herald)

  • Role: Investigate and report on the issue, shaping public perception.

  • Interest: Transparency and accountability in government data and decision-making.

  • Influence: Can drive public debate, put pressure on policymakers, and impact the referendum’s outcome.

• Owaho Residents (Voters in the Referendum)

  • Role: Decide the outcome of the proposed clear-cutting ban.

  • Interest: Varies between economic stability (timber-dependent jobs) and environmental preservation (tourism, ecological concerns).

  • Influence: Their vote determines whether the regulation is enacted.

4)       

The implementation of forest policy in Owaho, particularly concerning the regulation of logging and the dissemination of FIA data, depends on three main pillars:

1. Structure (Institutional and Administrative Framework)

The structure of policy implementation refers to the formal and informal organizations responsible for executing policy, their roles, and how they interact.

Analysis of the Structure in Owaho's Forest Policy Implementation:

• U.S. Forest Service (FIA Program) – A federal research body that provides data but does not enforce state-level policy. It adheres to scientific standards and a slow, methodical data review process.

• Owaho Forest Service – The state agency responsible for overseeing and regulating forest use. It is run by professionals with expertise in forestry but is influenced by the state government and the timber industry.

• State Government (Governor, Legislature) – The key decision-making authority, which sets policy direction based on economic and political considerations.

• Private Sector (The Industry) – Logging companies own 43% of the forests and exert significant influence over state policy decisions.

• Environmental Advocacy Groups (The Alliance) – Push for stricter regulations and mobilize public opinion, often in opposition to the industry.

• Media (Journalists, Public Discourse) – Act as a watchdog, holding policymakers accountable and influencing public sentiment.

Strengths & Weaknesses of the Structure:

✔ Strengths:

• Clearly defined roles among institutions.

• Scientific research (FIA) provides neutral, data-driven insights.

• Democratic mechanisms (referendum) allow direct public involvement.

✖ Weaknesses:

• Fragmentation of authority – Federal (USFS) and state (Owaho Forest Service) agencies have different priorities.

• Political bias – The state forester has industry ties, raising questions about impartiality.

• Resource constraints – Budget cuts delay FIA reports, limiting timely data for decision-making.

2. Decision-Making (Policy Choices and Power Dynamics)

Decision-making in this case revolves around who controls access to information and who sets the rules for forest management.

Key Decision-Makers & Their Positions:

• Petra Johnson (FIA Project Manager): Must decide whether to release preliminary data before full peer review. Balances FIA’s scientific integrity with political and public pressure.

• John Waxman (State Forester): Strongly opposed to early data release, fearing it will be misinterpreted against the logging industry.

• The Governor & Legislature: May intervene to influence policy outcomes based on lobbying efforts and public opinion.

• The Industry vs. The Alliance: Competing interests put pressure on policymakers, influencing decisions through lobbying, lawsuits, and media campaigns.

Strengths & Weaknesses of Decision-Making:

✔ Strengths:

• Democratic input (referendum) gives citizens a voice.

• FIA maintains scientific rigor, preventing rushed conclusions.

• Multiple stakeholders prevent unilateral decision-making.

✖ Weaknesses:

• Delays in decision-making due to bureaucratic procedures.

• Conflicts of interest (state forester's industry ties).

• Asymmetry of information – The Industry may have privileged access to preliminary data while the public and environmental groups do not.

3. Target Behavior (Compliance and Outcomes)

Policy success depends on how stakeholders respond to regulations and information.

Target Groups & Their Behaviors:

• Logging Companies:

  • Goal: Continue operations with minimal regulations.

  • Behavior: Lobbying, resisting new policies, using legal and economic arguments against restrictions.

• The Alliance & Environmentalists:

  • Goal: Reduce deforestation and promote conservation.

  • Behavior: Public mobilization, legal action (FOIA requests), media campaigns to pressure policymakers.

• Public/Voters:

  • Goal: Mixed (some want job security from logging; others prioritize conservation).

  • Behavior: Their voting decision in the referendum will determine policy outcomes.

• Media & Journalists:

  • Goal: Transparency and accountability.

  • Behavior: Investigative reporting, exposing potential biases, shaping public discourse.

Strengths & Weaknesses of Target Behavior:

✔ Strengths:

• Voters have direct power to influence policy.

• Public pressure ensures some level of accountability.

• The FIA’s credibility helps mitigate bias.

✖ Weaknesses:

• Selective information access – Some groups may receive data earlier than others, influencing perceptions.

• Resistance from industry – Even if the referendum passes, enforcement could be a challenge.

• Manipulation of public opinion – Stakeholders may frame the data in ways that serve their agenda

5)      Street-Level Bureaucrat in the Owaho Forest Policy Case

The street-level bureaucrat in this case is Petra Johnson, the Project Leader in the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Street-level bureaucrats are civil servants who implement policy on the ground and make discretionary decisions that significantly affect outcomes, even if they are not top policymakers.

Petra Johnson’s Implementation Power

Petra has considerable discretion in determining whether preliminary FIA data should be released before the official report is finalized. This decision is crucial because it directly impacts the public debate, media coverage, and potential political consequences of the logging referendum in Owaho.

Factors That Shape Petra’s Implementation Power

Bureaucratic Constraints (Limited Power)

She must follow FIA’s scientific review protocols, which discourage premature data release.

FIA has a tradition of neutrality, meaning early disclosure could be seen as taking sides.

The state forester (John Waxman) strongly opposes early release and could create problems for FIA in future collaborations.

Discretionary Authority (Significant Power)

There are no strict rules preventing Petra from releasing preliminary data; past practices suggest it is unusual but not illegal.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not automatically require release at this stage, but Petra knows that withholding information could lead to public pressure and accusations of bias.

She decides who gets access to the data and when, influencing how the public and policymakers interpret the issue.

External Pressures (Constrained Power but Indirect Influence)

The Alliance and the media want early access to the data and could frame delays as a government cover-up.

The Industry and the state forester want to control the narrative and delay data release until the final report is ready.

The referendum timeline puts pressure on her decision—if she waits, the data may come too late to affect public opinion.

Petra’s Level of Implementation Power: Moderate to High

While Petra is not a high-level policymaker, she has substantial street-level implementation power in this case because:
✔ She controls data access, influencing public perception and policy debates.
✔ Her decision can shift political momentum in favor of or against the referendum.
✔ She operates in a grey area of policy, where procedural rules do not explicitly dictate what she must do.

However, her power is not absolute because:
✖ The FIA’s institutional norms limit her choices—going against tradition could damage her career.
✖ State-level political forces (Waxman, industry lobbyists) could retaliate against FIA in future partnerships.
✖ She cannot change the official FIA timeline—only influence when preliminary data is shared.

Final Assessment

Petra Johnson is a classic street-level bureaucrat with significant but constrained implementation power. Her discretion in handling the release of FIA data makes her a key player in shaping policy outcomes, even though she is not an elected official.

6)      Implementation model

-          Both

-          1. Top-Down Elements

-          A top-down model assumes that policy implementation is directed by high-level policymakers who set clear goals and delegate tasks to lower-level bureaucrats.

-          ✔ Centralized Decision-Making:

-          The state forester (John Waxman), a political appointee, has a significant role in influencing forest policy.

-          The FIA program operates under strict federal guidelines and scientific protocols, reinforcing a hierarchical structure.

-          State government (Governor & Legislature) controls forest regulations and can shape policy responses.

-          ✔ Bureaucratic Control & Resistance:

-          Waxman wants to restrict early release of FIA data to avoid political fallout, using his position to influence Petra Johnson’s decision.

-          The FIA’s tradition of scientific rigor and slow data review is a bureaucratic constraint on implementation.

-          Policy follows predefined institutional procedures, such as the peer review process before publishing the final report.

-         

-          2. Bottom-Up Elements

-          A bottom-up model focuses on local actors (citizens, interest groups, frontline bureaucrats) shaping policy through their interactions and discretion.

-          ✔ Public & Grassroots Influence:

-          The Alliance (environmental activists) mobilizes public support, pressures policymakers, and gathers signatures for the referendum—a direct democratic mechanism.

-          Journalists & FOIA Requests create pressure for early data release, challenging government control of information.

-          Voters ultimately decide policy through the referendum, not just elected officials.

-          ✔ Street-Level Bureaucratic Discretion:

-          Petra Johnson (FIA project leader) has the authority to decide whether to release preliminary data early, despite pressure from both state officials (top-down) and public demands (bottom-up).

-          The media’s influence forces government agencies to consider public reaction rather than just internal bureaucratic procedures.

-         

-          3. Why This Case Is Hybrid

-          ✔ It starts as a top-down process – The state forester and FIA hierarchy control the inventory and decision-making.
✔ Bottom-up forces disrupt implementation – Public activism and direct democracy (referendum) challenge bureaucratic control.
✔ Implementation is negotiated – Petra Johnson operates at the intersection of both forces, deciding how the policy is executed within institutional constraints but under public scrutiny.

-         

-          Final Answer: Hybrid Implementation Model

-          This case blends top-down policy control with bottom-up democratic and bureaucratic discretion, making it a hybrid implementation model.

7)      She shouldn’t publish

-          Preserve credibility of FIA, scientific credibility, professionalism

-          Give time and space to the actors to shape the policy atmosphere

-          Con: pressure from media, lack of transparency, could be seen as hiding facts by the public

-          Scientific Credibility: The integrity of the FIA program is paramount. Prematurely releasing incomplete data could lead to misinterpretation and undermine the credibility of the entire inventory.

-          Avoiding Misinformation: The preliminary results from the northern counties do not reflect the full state, and releasing them without full context could mislead the public and influence the referendum inappropriately.

-          Professional Standards: The FIA follows a rigorous process that ensures data accuracy and thorough analysis. Petra must stick to these professional standards to maintain the trust and respect of scientific and governmental bodies.

-          Potential Political Consequences: If Petra releases the data prematurely, it might be seen as an attempt to favor one side of the debate, potentially alienating stakeholders and raising ethical concerns. Holding back ensures that the data will be presented in a manner that is neutral and scientifically valid.

She publishes

-          Con: Destroy the credibility of Fia, the data might be false and therefore falsely influence the referendum

-          Pro: Helps the stakeholders to shape the policy, Can help to pass the policy

 Greenpeace vs Brent Spar

Case narrative: the issue of disposal of the Brent Spar oil structure

Main plot: fight between Greenpeace and Brent Spar (Shell)

-          approval of disposal of the oil structure in the deep sea

-          greenpeace activism against the disposal of the structure in the deep sea

-          sabotage by greenpeace

-          bringing the issue into the public eye and to the media

o   interviews with experts from greenpeace, Institute of Oceanographic Studies, media silence from Shell

-          boycotting shell gas stations, protests

Main stakeholders: Shell, Spar, UK government, citizens, Greenpeace

problem definition stage: the issue of disposal of an oil structure

-          Problem definition = how stories are constructed

-          = A causal story (or narrative) consisting in four steps:

•       Harm identification (attributing blame to something -pandemic) =) polluting the environment, causing harm to wildlife as well as humans

•       Cause of harm (blaming something, someone) =) the disposal of the oil structure which had remaining oil which would get into the water, Shell

•       Blame attribution =) to Shell, to the UK government

•       Credit taking (when the solution is proposed) =) Greenpeace’s efforts (pushing for policy changes)  

Greenpeace framing:

-          Negative framing, Harmful, bad, devasting for the environment, polluting the environment, causing harm to wildlife as well as humans, exaggerating the problem (higher numbers), health risks, global problem – everyone will do it

-          Theme: environment

-          Scale: global

-          Time: long term

-          Strategies: Lobbying the public and the government, media presence, exaggerating the data, playing on emotions (save the environment), bringing to the G7 summit, taking this one issue and making into a policy change

-          First move agenda advantage: bringing the issue to the public first framing the narrative

•       Getting the policy they wanted

•       dropping sales for Shell

•       long term impact =) regulation of oil structires disposal

Shell framing:

-          Positive framing , minimal environmental impact, economic benefits, long-term benefit of disposal will be problem now but not in the long run

-          Theme: economic benefits

-          Scale: national

-          Time: short term (consequences)

-          Strategies: low media presence, downplaying the environmental impact, presenting a not so high levels of oil that would be disposed of, media presence in the later stages to fight Greenpeace

Agenda-setting

Agenda setters: Greenpeace – bringing the issue to public and media and through that making it a part of government agenda setting

-          Agenda pursued: regulations about the disposal of structures in the deep sea

-          Agenda type: systemic agenda, drafting

-          Contingency perspective =) garbage theory = Many policy problems and solutions float constantly in the policy space waiting for ‘coupling’. Sometimes solutions are in search of problems!

-          Institutional perspective

•       Actors who have the power to shape the decision rules are more likely to attain their preferences

 Summary of the Global Poverty Alleviation Policy Case Study

The document, "Global Development 2.0: Can Philanthropists, the Public, and the Poor Make Poverty History?", edited by Lael Brainard and Derek Chollet, examines modern international poverty alleviation efforts, focusing on the transformative role of advocacy networks, philanthropy, and public engagement.

Key Case Study: The Jubilee 2000 Campaign

The case study analyzes the Jubilee 2000 campaign, a global initiative advocating for debt relief for the world's poorest countries. Originating in the UK in 1996, the campaign was inspired by the biblical concept of a Jubilee Year (debt forgiveness). The movement successfully pressured major governments and institutions to provide significant debt relief, contributing to policies that eliminated billions in debt.

Factors Behind the Campaign’s Success

1. Issue Framing & Messaging

   • The campaign used moral and religious arguments to appeal to broad audiences, including faith-based groups.

   • It framed debt as a burden preventing poor countries from investing in essential services like education and healthcare.

2. Influential Messengers

   • Celebrities and religious figures played key roles, such as Bono (of U2), Pope John Paul II, and evangelical leaders like Pat Robertson.

   • Bono’s meeting with conservative U.S. Senator Jesse Helms was instrumental in shifting U.S. Republican support for debt relief.

3. Political Strategy

   • The campaign used inside lobbying, forming bipartisan alliances with influential politicians in the U.S., U.K., and G-7 nations.

   • It targeted key policymakers, such as President Bill Clinton, U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

4. Global Mobilization & Advocacy Tactics

   • A mix of grassroots pressure (petitions, protests) and high-level diplomacy influenced policymakers.

   • It leveraged G-8 Summits to extract commitments from world leaders.

Outcomes of the Jubilee 2000 Campaign

• Debt Relief Expansion: The campaign contributed to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, leading to debt cancellations worth $100 billion.

• Policy Shifts: It helped redefine global poverty debates and inspired later development campaigns, such as the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa.

• Bipartisan Cooperation: The campaign united liberals and conservatives, a rare feat in international development policy.

Challenges & Lessons for Future Advocacy

• Symbolic vs. Substantive Commitments: While governments pledged debt relief, some delayed implementation or attached conditions to aid.

• The Role of Celebrities: While figures like Bono boosted visibility, over-reliance on public figures can oversimplify complex policy issues.

• Political Neutrality: Advocacy groups must maintain non-partisan approaches to ensure sustained political support.

• Scaling Public Engagement: Despite its success, mass support for poverty alleviation remains limited compared to other political issues.

Conclusion

The Jubilee 2000 campaign is one of the most successful poverty reduction advocacy efforts in history, demonstrating how moral arguments, strategic alliances, and high-profile messengers can influence global policymaking. However, sustaining momentum in poverty alleviation requires continued pressure, institutional reforms, and deeper public engagement.