IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v63y2006i1p212-224.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advocacy coalitions and pharmacy policy in Denmark--Solid cores with fuzzy edges

Author

Listed:
  • Larsen, Jakob Bjerg
  • Vrangbæk, Karsten
  • Traulsen, Janine M.

Abstract

This paper presents the results from a qualitative study in which the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was used to analyze deregulation of the distribution of medicine in Denmark in October 2001. The study is based on qualitative methods, and it examines the policy process between 1996 and 2001. Data sources were documents and qualitative interviews. The results show that minor modifications of the ACF are needed to make it fully applicable to the case of pharmacy policy, especially when the policy process proceeds in a predominantly corporatist state. We found that the policy process was framed by two coalitions advocating different belief systems. One coalition wanted the pharmacy sector to be controlled by the state, the other wanted a full-scale liberalization. Throughout the process there was a general shift in policy core beliefs among the actors involved--moving from positively disposed towards a market-oriented reform to being more negatively disposed towards such a reform. We argue that two factors contributed to this. First, as the discussions about a reform became more specific, technical matters began to influence the actors. Second, the legitimacy of a solution which did not alter the regulation of the pharmacy sector radically, was reinforced by institutionalized norms that made politicians take onboard pharmacy professionals' concerns.

Suggested Citation

  • Larsen, Jakob Bjerg & Vrangbæk, Karsten & Traulsen, Janine M., 2006. "Advocacy coalitions and pharmacy policy in Denmark--Solid cores with fuzzy edges," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 212-224, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:1:p:212-224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(05)00654-4
    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. Tatiana Nevzorova & Vladimir Kutcherov, 2021. "The Role of Advocacy Coalitions in Shaping the Technological Innovation Systems: The Case of the Russian Renewable Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-24, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Simon Bogumil‐Uçan & Tanja Klenk, 2021. "Varieties of health care digitalization: Comparing advocacy coalitions in Austria and Germany," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(4), pages 478-503, July.
    4. Harrinkari, Teemu & Katila, Pia & Karppinen, Heimo, 2016. "Stakeholder coalitions in forest politics: revision of Finnish Forest Act," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 30-37.
    5. 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.

    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:63:y:2006:i:1:p:212-224. 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.