Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia
Menzies Health Research Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Oct;8(Suppl 8). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012058.
In 2019-2020, the Ethiopian government ratified a suite of legislative measures that includes levying a tax on tobacco products. This study aims to examine stakeholders' involvement, position, power and perception regarding the Ethiopian Food and Drug Authority (EFDA) bill (Proclamation No.1112/2019). This includes their meaning-making and interaction with each other during the bill's formulation, adoption and implementation stages.
We employed a mixed-methods design drawing on three sources of data: (1) policy documents and media articles from government and/or civil society groups (n=27), (2) audio and video transcripts of parliamentary debates and (3) qualitative stakeholder interviews.
Policy actors in both the public health camp and tobacco industry employed several framing moves, engaged in distinctive patterns of moral rhetoric, and strategically invoked moral languages to galvanise support for their policy objectives. Central to this framing debate are issues of public health and the danger of tobacco, and the protection of 'the economy and personal freedom'. The public health camp's arguments and persuasiveness-which led to the passage of the EFDA bill-centred around discrediting tobacco industry's cost-benefit assessments through frame disconnection, or by polarising their own position that the financial, psychological and lost productivity costs incurred by tobacco use outweighs any tax revenue.
A successful cultivation of an epistemic community and engagement of policy entrepreneurs-both from government agencies and civil society organisations-was critical in creating a united front and a compelling affirmative policy narrative, thereby influence excise tax policy outcomes.
2019-2020 年,埃塞俄比亚政府批准了一系列立法措施,包括对烟草产品征税。本研究旨在考察利益相关者对埃塞俄比亚食品药品管理局(EFDA)法案(第 1112/2019 号公告)的参与、立场、权力和看法。这包括他们在法案制定、通过和实施阶段的意义构建和相互作用。
我们采用了混合方法设计,利用了三种数据来源:(1)政府和/或民间社会团体的政策文件和媒体文章(n=27);(2)议会辩论的音频和视频记录;(3)定性利益攸关方访谈。
公共卫生阵营和烟草业的政策行为者都使用了几种框架手段,采用了不同的道德修辞模式,并巧妙地援引道德语言来为其政策目标争取支持。这场框架辩论的核心是公共卫生问题和烟草的危险,以及“经济和个人自由”的保护。公共卫生阵营的论点和说服力——导致 EFDA 法案的通过——集中在通过框架脱节来诋毁烟草业的成本效益评估,或者通过将自己的立场两极化,即烟草使用造成的财务、心理和生产力损失超过任何税收收入。
成功培养一个认识论共同体和政策企业家的参与——来自政府机构和民间社会组织——对于形成一个统一战线和一个引人注目的肯定性政策叙述至关重要,从而影响消费税政策结果。