Zatoński Mateusz, Bertscher Adam, Gallagher Allen W A, Matthes Britta K
Department for Health, Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom.
Department of Social and Policy Sciences, Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom.
Health Policy Plan. 2025 May 9;40(5):531-547. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czaf013.
South Africa (SA) used to be recognized as a committed leader in tobacco control (TC) having passed effective TC policies in the 1990s, but in recent years, it has been overtaken by other countries. While research suggests that the tobacco industry (TI) predominantly uses economic arguments to shape TC policy discussions in SA, TI tactics to influence policy formulation have not been examined in the peer-reviewed literature. In this study, we draw on three frameworks (health policy triangle, 'bit in the middle', and Policy Dystopia Model) and 20 interviews, supplemented with academic and 'grey' literature, to explore TC policy formulation in SA. We focus on SA's 2018 draft TC Bill, which as of January 2025 has not been adopted. We found that despite SA's commitment to protect TC policies from the TI's vested interests, as set out in Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, TI actors interfered throughout the policy formulation process. Participants reported efforts to shape policy alternatives by influencing the impact assessment and generating favourable evidence. To influence deliberation, they lobbied policymakers. To advocate for their preferred outcome, they sought to shape public opinion through campaigns and built alliances, for example, with the non-tobacco business community. The identified strategies were consistent with those observed elsewhere. Some were tailored to the SA context characterised by political corruption, and sensitivity around race and the legacy of Apartheid, as well as rivalry between transnational corporations and local producers. Industry actors also sought to redirect attention to TC areas (illicit trade and taxation) not led by the health sector, likely more susceptible to TI influence. The study demonstrates to policymakers, advocates, and researchers, the importance of not looking at a TC policy in isolation and of being mindful of industry efforts to exploit inherent policy-making complexities.
南非(SA)曾被视为烟草控制(TC)领域的坚定领导者,在20世纪90年代通过了有效的烟草控制政策,但近年来,它已被其他国家超越。虽然研究表明,烟草行业(TI)在南非主要利用经济论据来影响烟草控制政策讨论,但同行评议文献中尚未对烟草行业影响政策制定的策略进行研究。在本研究中,我们借鉴了三个框架(卫生政策三角、“中间环节”和政策反乌托邦模型)以及20次访谈,并辅以学术文献和“灰色”文献,以探讨南非的烟草控制政策制定。我们重点关注南非2018年的烟草控制法案草案,截至2025年1月该草案尚未通过。我们发现,尽管南非致力于保护烟草控制政策免受烟草行业既得利益的影响,正如世界卫生组织《烟草控制框架公约》第5.3条所规定的那样,但烟草行业行为体在整个政策制定过程中都进行了干预。参与者报告称,他们通过影响影响评估和提供有利证据来塑造政策选择。为了影响审议过程,他们游说政策制定者。为了倡导他们偏好的结果,他们试图通过开展宣传活动来塑造公众舆论,并建立联盟,例如与非烟草商业界建立联盟。所确定的策略与在其他地方观察到的策略一致。其中一些策略是根据南非的情况量身定制的,南非存在政治腐败、对种族和种族隔离遗留问题敏感以及跨国公司与当地生产商之间的竞争等特点。烟草行业行为体还试图将注意力重新引向并非由卫生部门主导的烟草控制领域(非法贸易和税收),这些领域可能更容易受到烟草行业的影响。该研究向政策制定者、倡导者和研究人员表明,不能孤立地看待烟草控制政策,并且要注意烟草行业利用政策制定内在复杂性的努力。