IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v48y1999i9p1247-1258.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

No struggle, no strength: how pharmacists lost their monopoly

Author

Listed:
  • Morgall, Janine Marie
  • Almarsdóttir, Anna Birna

Abstract

Research accounts of the struggle of professions to attain and maintain a monopoly, strategies of exclusion and usurpation, make for interesting and often exciting reading. The purpose of this article is to present a less frequently reported phenomenon -- the study of a profession that had a monopoly, and then lost it. The authors attempt to answer the question: under what circumstances will a profession support the state in breaking their own monopoly? The study looked at the pharmacy profession in Iceland in the light of the recent change in drug legislation. Interviews with key actors in the pharmacy profession were conducted to gain an understanding of how they interpreted and experienced this change. Three factors contributed to the break in the professional monopoly: (1) political desire to take advantage of new competition and deregulation policy, (2) desire to cut the health budget and (3) internal divisions within the profession. The results of the study revealed at least four internal divisions within the pharmacy profession: (1) urban/rural, (2) employer/employee, (3) lower/higher education and (4) young/old. The article illustrates how a profession weakened by internal strife became prey to the government's cost cutting activities. This study is an example of how internal conflicts not only weakened the profession, but created a climate conducive to losing its monopoly. Our findings raise fundamental questions about the future of professions in society today.

Suggested Citation

  • Morgall, Janine Marie & Almarsdóttir, Anna Birna, 1999. "No struggle, no strength: how pharmacists lost their monopoly," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1247-1258, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:48:y:1999:i:9:p:1247-1258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(98)00424-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Noerreslet, Mikkel & Larsen, Jakob B. & Traulsen, Janine M., 2005. "The medicine user--Lost in translation?: Analysis of the official political debate prior to the deregulation of the Danish medicine distribution system," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(8), pages 1733-1740, October.
    2. Moura, Ana, 2021. "Essays in health economics," Other publications TiSEM c93abd22-fa4a-42a5-b172-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Vogler, Sabine & Habimana, Katharina & Arts, Danielle, 2014. "Does deregulation in community pharmacy impact accessibility of medicines, quality of pharmacy services and costs? Evidence from nine European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 311-327.
    4. Lluch, Maria & Kanavos, Panos, 2010. "Impact of regulation of Community Pharmacies on efficiency, access and equity. Evidence from the UK and Spain," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(2-3), pages 245-254, May.
    5. Anell, Anders, 2005. "Deregulating the pharmacy market: the case of Iceland and Norway," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 9-17, December.
    6. Ana Moura & Pedro Pita Barros, 2020. "Entry and price competition in the over‐the‐counter drug market after deregulation: Evidence from Portugal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(8), pages 865-877, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:48:y:1999:i:9:p:1247-1258. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.