David Genevieve, Cooper Richard, Dixon Simon, Holmes John
ClinChoice Inc., Medical Device Development, The University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research, Mandaluyong City, Philippines.
The University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research, Sheffield, UK.
Addiction. 2022 Apr;117(4):1163-1172. doi: 10.1111/add.15699. Epub 2021 Oct 19.
In 2003, the UK government passed the Licensing Act for England and Wales. The Act provides a framework for regulating alcohol sale, including four licensing objectives with local governments having devolved responsibility for granting licences to sell alcohol. Members of the public can make representations of oppositions to licence applications. Applying the theories of the policy process, we explored the practices employed by licensing authorities when deciding on alcohol licences in situations of conflict between licence applicants and members of the public.
Qualitative study comprising a framework analysis of in-depth semi-structured interviews and application of the theories of institutionalism, the advocacy coalition framework and role of ideas.
Eleven local authorities in five regions in England in 2019.
Purposive sample of 15 licensing officers, licensing subcommittee chairs, public health leads for licensing and police licensing officers.
The interview schedule included mechanisms of public involvement in licensing, parties involved, the subject of conflicts and how licensing authorities made decisions.
When members of the public opposed licence applications, licensing authorities employed three key decision-making practices: procedural fairness, partnership working and framing. The normativity of procedural fairness was an important institutional structure within which conflicts were resolved. Licensing authorities also worked in partnership with the involved parties, who often appeared as advocacy coalitions that shared beliefs and advanced specific issues to determine mutually acceptable solutions. At times, licensing authorities framed issues through ideational processes to solve problems.
Licensing decision-making under the United Kingdom's Licensing Act for England and Wales appear in many cases to focus on resolution of conflicts between licence applicants and members of the public rather than on promotion of licensing objectives. This raises uncertainty regarding the impact of public involvement on reducing alcohol availability, but ultimately represents a pragmatic process that seeks to restore balance in powers, improve transparency in decision-making and empower communities.
2003年，英国政府通过了英格兰和威尔士的《许可法案》。该法案为规范酒精销售提供了一个框架，包括四个许可目标，地方政府负责下放发放酒精销售许可证的职责。公众可以对许可证申请提出反对意见。运用政策过程理论，我们探讨了在许可证申请人与公众发生冲突的情况下，许可当局在决定酒精销售许可证时所采用的做法。
定性研究，包括对深入的半结构化访谈进行框架分析，并应用制度主义理论、倡导联盟框架和观念的作用。
2019年英格兰五个地区的11个地方当局。
15名许可官员、许可小组委员会主席、负责许可的公共卫生负责人和警察许可官员的目的抽样。
访谈提纲包括公众参与许可的机制、涉及的各方、冲突的主题以及许可当局如何做出决定。
当公众反对许可证申请时，许可当局采用了三种关键的决策做法：程序公平、合作共事和框架构建。程序公平的规范性是解决冲突的重要制度结构。许可当局还与相关各方合作，这些各方通常表现为倡导联盟，他们有着共同的信念并推动特定问题以确定相互认可的解决方案。有时，许可当局通过观念过程来构建问题以解决问题。
根据英国《英格兰和威尔士许可法案》进行的许可决策在许多情况下似乎侧重于解决许可证申请人与公众之间的冲突，而不是促进许可目标。这引发了关于公众参与对减少酒精供应影响的不确定性，但最终代表了一个务实的过程，旨在恢复权力平衡、提高决策透明度并赋予社区权力。
