MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809530516 · doi:10.1093/heapol/czy049

Unpacking policy formulation and industry influence: the case of the draft control of marketing of alcoholic beverages bill in South Africa

2018· article· en· W2809530516 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Adam Bertscher, Leslie London, Marsha Orgill

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Policy and Planning · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation, United Arab EmiratesNational Research FoundationInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsUnpackingMarketingControl (management)BusinessAdvertisingEconomicsEconomic growthManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alcohol is a major contributor to the Non-Communicable Disease burden in South Africa. In 2000, 7.1% of all deaths and 7% of total disability-adjusted life years were ascribed to alcohol-related harm in the country. Regulations proposed to restrict alcohol advertising in South Africa present an evidence-based upstream intervention. Research on policy formulation in low- and middle-income countries is limited. This study aims to describe and explore the policy formulation process of the 2013 draft Control of Marketing of Alcoholic Beverages Bill in South Africa between March 2011 and May 2017. Recognising the centrality of affected actors in policy-making processes, the study focused on the alcohol industry as a central actor affected by the policy, to understand how they-together with other actors-may influence the policy formulation process. A qualitative case study approach was used, involving a stakeholder mapping, 10 in-depth interviews, and review of approximately 240 documents. A policy formulation conceptual framework was successfully applied as a lens to describe a complex policy formulation process. Key factors shaping policy formulation included: (1) competing and shared values-different stakeholders promote conflicting ideals for policymaking; (2) inter-department jostling-different government departments seek to protect their own functions, hindering policy development; (3) stakeholder consultation in democratic policymaking-policy formulation requires consultations even with those opposed to regulation and (4) battle for evidence-evidence is used strategically by all parties to shape perceptions and leverage positions. This research (1) contributes to building an integrated body of knowledge on policy formulation in low- and middle-income countries; (2) shows that achieving policy coherence across government departments poses a major challenge to achieving effective health policy formulation and (3) shows that networks of actors with commercial and financial interests use diverse strategies to influence policy formulation processes to avoid regulation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Policy and PlanningSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207