Tied up in a legal mess’

The alcohol industry's use of litigation to oppose minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland

Bibliographic Data

ID12285752
AuthorsBrian Hawkins (0000-0002-7027-8046, Dr Benjamin Hawkins is Associate Professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. His research focuses principally on the role of corporate actors, particularly in the alcohol and tobacco industries, on health policy debates at the national, European and global levels. In addition, he has published work on European integration, multi-level governance, international trade and political economy approaches to health policy., corresponding author), Jim Mccambridge (0000-0002-5461-7001, Professor Jim McCambridge holds the Chair in Addictive Behaviours & Public Health at the University of York. His research interests span alcohol, drugs and other addictions and research methodology. He is also Visiting Professor at Linkoping University in Sweden, and Conjoint Professor at the University of Newcastle in Australia. His alcohol policy work is primarily concerned with better understanding the ways in which corporate actors influence science and policy in order to strengthen public health...)
Year2020
Volume29
Issue1
Pages3-23
Publication date2020-02-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueScottish Affairs (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0966-0356 • E-ISSN: 2053-888X
PublisherEdinburgh University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.3366/scot.2020.0304
PMID32733118
OpenAlexW3007028617
LanguageEN
Citations received14
References cited41

This article examines the alcohol industry's legal challenges to minimum unit pricing (MUP) in Scotland through the stages heuristic of the policy process. It builds on previous studies of alcohol pricing policy in Scotland and across the UK, and of the use of legal challenges by health harming industries to oppose health policy globally. Having failed to prevent MUP passing into law, industry actors sought to frustrate the implementation of the legislation via challenges in the Scottish, European and UK courts. However, the relevance of legal challenges is not limited to the post-legislative stage of the policy process but was foreshadowed in all earlier stages of the policy process. The potential for a legal challenge to MUP, and the alcohol industry's clearly articulated intention to pursue such action, was used by industry actors to seek to prevent the adoption of MUP in the agenda setting, policy formulation and legislative stages and created significant 'regulatory chill' in other areas of Scottish and UK alcohol policy. Litigation, and the prospect of it, was thus part of a coherent and integrated long-term strategy which adapted to changes in the political climate and to different stages in the policy process. While both the rhetoric and reality of litigation failed to prevent policy implementation, it succeeded in causing a delay of six years, imposing significant costs on the Scottish government and creating policy inertia in Scottish alcohol policy subsequently. Moreover, the inclusion of a 'sunset clause' in the legislation, requiring ongoing evaluation of the policy's effects, presents additional opportunities for the industry to reverse MUP. Thus, industry strategies to undermine MUP and delay further alcohol policy developments require ongoing attention by policy actors and scholars

Advertising · Alcohol industry · Business · Economics · Government (linguistics · Health care · Law and economics · Legislation · Legislature · Political science · Politics · Public economics · Unit price · Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology · Health Services Management and Policy · Law · Public Administration · Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes · Health Policy

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access