Abstract
This article adopts a multiple streams approach to examine the failure to implement minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol in England. It demonstrates that the multiple streams model provides a valuable conceptual tool for explaining how and why policies are, and are not, enacted. However, it finds that while problem streams and policy streams are useful heuristic devices, in practice they may overlap and be mutually constitutive. The case of MUP also highlights the potential for policy spillover between jurisdictions and different policy contexts, showing both limits to, and the complex nature of, these processes. It shows the need for high level political commitment in order to implement controversial policies, even when they are backed by strong supporting evidence. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of civil society actors not just in bringing policy issues onto the agenda, but in supporting governments in adopting measures to address them.
Highlights
In March 2012,the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government announced its intention to introduce minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol in England in The Government’s Alcohol Strategy (GAS) (HM Government, 2012): We will introduce a minimum unit price (MUP) for alcohol meaning that, for the first time ever in England and Wales, alcohol will not be allowed to Benjamin Hawkins and Jim McCambridge be sold below a certain defined price
This article draws on semi-structured interviews with key policy actors and Kingdon’s (1984) multiple streams approach (MSA) to the policy process to understand how and why MUP was adopted as a policy in 2012, and why this decision was reversed so soon after.The article builds on previous journalistic and scholarly accounts of these policy events.While Gornall (2014) catalogues industry policy influencing strategies to oppose MUP – drawing on studies by McCambridge et al (2014) and Katikireddi et al (2014b) – Nicholls and Greenaway (2015) employ the MSA in identifying structural characteristics of the alcohol policy debate – definitional,ideological,systemic and evidentiary – which undermined efforts to introduce MUP
As one government respondent commented: MUP as a policy, I don’t think it’s bought into. [...] I don’t think they understand what it is or what it’s trying to achieve and who it will affect. This confusion about the nature and purposes of MUP was evident in the framing of its objectives in the GAS in terms of binge drinking and public order issues, as well as in David Cameron’s foreword.Appreciation of the effectiveness of MUP in addressing the long-term health consequences, as well as the short-term intoxication-related dangers, of drinking was weak outside Department of Health (DH).The gradual shift of responsibility for the Policy windows and multiple streams alcohol strategy from DH to the Home Office meant that the policy emerged in the context of an absence of political ownership of the policy and considerable institutional uncertainty
Summary
This article adopts a multiple streams approach to examine the failure to implement minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol in England. It demonstrates that the multiple streams model provides a valuable conceptual tool for explaining how and why policies are, and are not, enacted. The case of MUP highlights the potential for policy spillover between jurisdictions and different policy contexts, showing both limits to, and the complex nature of, these processes. It shows the need for high level political commitment in order to implement controversial policies, even when they are backed by strong supporting evidence.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
