All opinions are not equal
Toward a consensual approach to the development of drug policy
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11229193 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gabriel T W Wong (0000-0001-9572-1561, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods Australian National University Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia, corresponding author), Matthew Manning (0000-0002-1622-4936, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods Australian National University Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 57 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 812-828 |
| Publication date | 2022-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Australian Journal of Social Issues (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0157-6321 • E-ISSN: 1839-4655 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/ajs4.213 |
| OpenAlex | W4224237362 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 35 |
Drug policy has been subjected to much scrutiny from different stakeholder groups who present sometimes very different opinions on solutions to address a problem. Reconciling such differences, that are underpinned by both anecdotal and empirical evidence, is a priority yet to be fully achieved. In this study, we examine: (i) whether differences exist among actor groups regarding their perceived importance in policymaking; (ii) whether those who dominate the decision process value the input of laypeople or minority actors; and (iii) whether differences exist, with regard to i and ii, between study sites (i.e. Australia and Hong Kong) that have markedly different drug strategies. Overall, differential preference weightings between dominant groups reveal a strong influence of political orientation. Results suggest that decisions made by health professionals were regarded as the most important, while most of the respondent groups gave a low preference toward policy decisions made by law enforcers. Dominant groups also tend to discount the inputs of laypeople and other minority groups. Our study highlights the importance for policy actor groups to consider such a differential weighting of inputs when synthesising knowledge and gathering opinions for the development of drug policy
Differential (mechanical device · Economics · Empirical research · Legitimacy · Microeconomics · Normative · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Preference · Public economics · Public relations · Respondent · Scrutiny · Stakeholder · Value (mathematics · Advanced Causal Inference Techniques · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Law · Policy Transfer and Learning · Psychology · Social Psychology
Working for Policy
A review of the efficacy and effectiveness of harm reduction strategies for alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs
Drug harms in the UK
Policy change and learning
The Making of Criminal Justice Policy
The Routledge Handbook of Chinese Criminology
Hidden Drug Abuse in Hong Kong
Explaining drug policy
How do drug policy makers access research evidence
Optimal timing of use reduction vs. harm reduction in a drug epidemic model
Evidence, values and drug treatment policy
When two dark figures collide
Policing methamphetamine problems
Recasting Participation in Drug Policy
What work makes policy
The advocacy coalition framework
"The Science of "Muddling Through
The Dynamic Consequences of Nonvoting in American National Elections
Reconceptualizing the Policy Subsystem
Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition framework
The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |