Political Science and International Relations, School of Social Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Dec 6;11(11):2660-2671. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.6518. Epub 2022 Apr 5.
Vaccine hesitancy is a global problem with diverse local policy responses, from voluntaristic to coercive. Between 2015 and 2017, California, Australia, France, and Italy increased the coerciveness of their childhood vaccine regimes. Despite this apparent convergence, there is little evidence of imposition, policy learning, or diffusion - the drivers that are usually discussed in scholarly literature on policy convergence. The fact that the four governments were oriented across the political spectrum, with quite different political and institutional systems, further indicates an empirical puzzle.
To better understand the drivers of enhanced vaccine mandates, a crucial issue during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global rollout, this article engages with four case studies assembled from qualitative analysis of semi-structured in-country interviews and document analysis between November 2018 and November 2020. Key informants had specific expert knowledge or played a role in the introduction or implementation of the new policies. Interview transcripts were coded inductively and deductively, augmented with extensive analysis of legal, policy, academic and media documents.
The case analysis identifies two key and interacting elements in government decisions to tighten vaccine mandates: functional and political pressures. Policy-makers in Italy and France were primarily driven by functional challenges, with their vaccination governance systems under threat from reduced population compliance. California and Australia did not face systemic threats to the functioning of their systems, but activists utilised local opportunities to heighten political pressure on decision makers.
In four recent cases of high-income jurisdictions making childhood vaccination policies more coercive, vaccine hesitancy alone could not explain why the policies arose in these jurisdictions and not others, while path dependency alone could not explain why some jurisdictions with mandates made them more coercive. Explanation lies in restrictive mandates being attractive for governments, whether they face systemic functional problems in vaccine governance, or political pressures generated by media and activists. Mandates can be framed as targeting whole populations or localised groups of refusers, and implemented without onerous costs or policy complexity.
疫苗犹豫是一个全球性问题,各国的政策反应也各不相同,从自愿接种到强制接种都有。2015 年至 2017 年期间,加利福尼亚州、澳大利亚、法国和意大利都提高了儿童疫苗接种计划的强制性。尽管这种趋同趋势明显,但几乎没有证据表明存在政策趋同学术文献中通常讨论的强制实施、政策学习或扩散等驱动因素。这四个政府在政治上存在分歧,而且具有非常不同的政治和制度体系,这进一步表明了这是一个经验上的难题。
为了更好地理解增强疫苗授权的驱动因素,这是 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)全球推出期间的一个关键问题,本文通过对 2018 年 11 月至 2020 年 11 月期间进行的半结构化国内访谈的定性分析和文件分析,进行了四个案例研究。关键信息提供者具有特定的专业知识,或者在新政策的引入或实施中发挥了作用。对访谈记录进行了归纳和演绎编码,并结合对法律、政策、学术和媒体文件的广泛分析进行了补充。
案例分析确定了政府加强疫苗授权决定的两个关键且相互作用的因素:功能压力和政治压力。意大利和法国的政策制定者主要受到功能挑战的驱动,其疫苗接种治理系统受到人口遵守率下降的威胁。加利福尼亚州和澳大利亚的系统功能没有受到威胁,但活动家利用当地机会加剧了决策者面临的政治压力。
在四个高收入司法管辖区最近采取更具强制性的儿童疫苗接种政策的案例中,仅疫苗犹豫本身并不能解释为什么这些政策出现在这些司法管辖区,而不是其他司法管辖区,而路径依赖本身也不能解释为什么一些有授权的司法管辖区更具强制性。解释在于限制授权对政府具有吸引力,无论它们在疫苗治理方面是否面临系统性功能问题,还是媒体和活动家产生的政治压力。授权可以针对整个人口或拒绝接种疫苗的局部群体,并且可以在没有繁重成本或政策复杂性的情况下实施。