State-ownership of tobacco industry: a ‘fundamental conflict of interest’ or a ‘tremendous opportunity’ for tobacco control?

Despite state-owned tobacco companies (SOTCs) accounting for over 40% of global production, the significance of state-ownership for tobacco control strategies has received limited academic and policy attention. The complex interests associated with SOTCs present diverse challenges for tobacco contro...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Tobacco control 2016-07, Vol.25 (4), p.367-372
Hauptverfasser: Hogg, Scott L, Hill, Sarah E, Collin, Jeff
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 372
container_issue 4
container_start_page 367
container_title Tobacco control
container_volume 25
creator Hogg, Scott L
Hill, Sarah E
Collin, Jeff
description Despite state-owned tobacco companies (SOTCs) accounting for over 40% of global production, the significance of state-ownership for tobacco control strategies has received limited academic and policy attention. The complex interests associated with SOTCs present diverse challenges for tobacco control policy, particularly in implementing Article 5.3 of WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Based on a review of existing literature, this paper examines current challenges and potential opportunities presented by governmental participation in the tobacco industry, identifying three contrasting perspectives from academic and policy sources. The first two perspectives centre on recognising that economic interests inherent in an SOTC are in tension with a government's public health responsibilities. This conflict can be perceived as either fundamental and fixed (‘intrinsic conflict’) or as amenable to either exacerbation or amelioration via organisational mechanisms (‘institutionally-mediated conflict’)—as suggested by the contrasting examples of China and Thailand. A third, less prominent perspective (which we refer to as ‘interest alignment’) suggests that it may be possible to radically alter the objectives and behaviour of SOTCs in order to advance tobacco control. Finally, we draw on this analysis to consider policy options for advancing tobacco control in countries with SOTCs. Guidance on implementation of Article 5.3 demonstrates strategic ambiguity by including elements of all three perspectives described above. We argue that legislative separation of tobacco control from SOTC oversight provides a desirable alternative to industry privatisation, and that radically realigning the goals of SOTCs to reduce tobacco consumption could make an important contribution to endgame strategies.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052114
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1808709262</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>24842690</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>24842690</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b448t-83bbad70a973ccfe512c7aeccc01d499f10eceb2d9bfb41e3d75e5c335181bf83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkc1u1TAQhS0EopfCIxRFZcMm1BPbid0NQhV_UiUWhXVkO7bIVWKntqPq7rrgIeD1-iQ45JaKbipWs5hvzpmZg9Ax4DcApD5JXkmtvfYuBT-UFQZaYlYB0EdoA7TmJSHAH6MNFjUtKavJAXoW4xZjIA2Dp-igqitKOMAG_bhIMpnSXzkT4vd-Krwt9vpF77o5prA7LWRxc_3Tzq6To3FJDkX2tkOv04L3LplgYrq5_lX4sLIpmEx2fo6FnyYf0uz6tFsIm5Fbg_0Fb5-jJ1YO0bzY10P07cP7r2efyvMvHz-fvTsvFaU8lZwoJbsGS9EQra1hUOlGGq01ho4KYQEbbVTVCWUVBUO6hhmmCWHAQVlODtHrVXcK_nLOK7djH7UZBulMXrUFjnmDRf7Ow2gjBKvzyxf01T106-fg8iGLIFDO6B_B05XSwccYjG2n0I8y7FrA7RJr-2-s7RJru8aah1_uLWY1mu7v6G2OGThagW1MPtz1KadVLXDus7Wvxu3_GP8Gm3nEvQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1801485462</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>State-ownership of tobacco industry: a ‘fundamental conflict of interest’ or a ‘tremendous opportunity’ for tobacco control?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Hogg, Scott L ; Hill, Sarah E ; Collin, Jeff</creator><creatorcontrib>Hogg, Scott L ; Hill, Sarah E ; Collin, Jeff</creatorcontrib><description>Despite state-owned tobacco companies (SOTCs) accounting for over 40% of global production, the significance of state-ownership for tobacco control strategies has received limited academic and policy attention. The complex interests associated with SOTCs present diverse challenges for tobacco control policy, particularly in implementing Article 5.3 of WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Based on a review of existing literature, this paper examines current challenges and potential opportunities presented by governmental participation in the tobacco industry, identifying three contrasting perspectives from academic and policy sources. The first two perspectives centre on recognising that economic interests inherent in an SOTC are in tension with a government's public health responsibilities. This conflict can be perceived as either fundamental and fixed (‘intrinsic conflict’) or as amenable to either exacerbation or amelioration via organisational mechanisms (‘institutionally-mediated conflict’)—as suggested by the contrasting examples of China and Thailand. A third, less prominent perspective (which we refer to as ‘interest alignment’) suggests that it may be possible to radically alter the objectives and behaviour of SOTCs in order to advance tobacco control. Finally, we draw on this analysis to consider policy options for advancing tobacco control in countries with SOTCs. Guidance on implementation of Article 5.3 demonstrates strategic ambiguity by including elements of all three perspectives described above. We argue that legislative separation of tobacco control from SOTC oversight provides a desirable alternative to industry privatisation, and that radically realigning the goals of SOTCs to reduce tobacco consumption could make an important contribution to endgame strategies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0964-4563</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-3318</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052114</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26243811</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Alcohols ; China ; Conflict of Interest ; Conflicts of interest ; Corporations ; Government ; Health Policy ; Humans ; Mediation ; Minors ; Monopolies ; Monopoly ; Objectives ; Ownership - economics ; Ownership - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Privatization ; Public health ; Public Health - economics ; Public Health - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Regulatory legislation ; Special communication ; Thailand ; Tobacco ; Tobacco industry ; Tobacco Industry - economics ; Tobacco Industry - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Tobacco policy</subject><ispartof>Tobacco control, 2016-07, Vol.25 (4), p.367-372</ispartof><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing</rights><rights>2016 BMJ Publishing Group</rights><rights>Copyright: 2016 Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b448t-83bbad70a973ccfe512c7aeccc01d499f10eceb2d9bfb41e3d75e5c335181bf83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b448t-83bbad70a973ccfe512c7aeccc01d499f10eceb2d9bfb41e3d75e5c335181bf83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/25/4/367.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/25/4/367.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,314,780,784,803,3196,23571,27924,27925,58017,58250,77600,77631</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26243811$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hogg, Scott L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Sarah E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collin, Jeff</creatorcontrib><title>State-ownership of tobacco industry: a ‘fundamental conflict of interest’ or a ‘tremendous opportunity’ for tobacco control?</title><title>Tobacco control</title><addtitle>Tob Control</addtitle><description>Despite state-owned tobacco companies (SOTCs) accounting for over 40% of global production, the significance of state-ownership for tobacco control strategies has received limited academic and policy attention. The complex interests associated with SOTCs present diverse challenges for tobacco control policy, particularly in implementing Article 5.3 of WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Based on a review of existing literature, this paper examines current challenges and potential opportunities presented by governmental participation in the tobacco industry, identifying three contrasting perspectives from academic and policy sources. The first two perspectives centre on recognising that economic interests inherent in an SOTC are in tension with a government's public health responsibilities. This conflict can be perceived as either fundamental and fixed (‘intrinsic conflict’) or as amenable to either exacerbation or amelioration via organisational mechanisms (‘institutionally-mediated conflict’)—as suggested by the contrasting examples of China and Thailand. A third, less prominent perspective (which we refer to as ‘interest alignment’) suggests that it may be possible to radically alter the objectives and behaviour of SOTCs in order to advance tobacco control. Finally, we draw on this analysis to consider policy options for advancing tobacco control in countries with SOTCs. Guidance on implementation of Article 5.3 demonstrates strategic ambiguity by including elements of all three perspectives described above. We argue that legislative separation of tobacco control from SOTC oversight provides a desirable alternative to industry privatisation, and that radically realigning the goals of SOTCs to reduce tobacco consumption could make an important contribution to endgame strategies.</description><subject>Alcohols</subject><subject>China</subject><subject>Conflict of Interest</subject><subject>Conflicts of interest</subject><subject>Corporations</subject><subject>Government</subject><subject>Health Policy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mediation</subject><subject>Minors</subject><subject>Monopolies</subject><subject>Monopoly</subject><subject>Objectives</subject><subject>Ownership - economics</subject><subject>Ownership - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Privatization</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Public Health - economics</subject><subject>Public Health - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Regulatory legislation</subject><subject>Special communication</subject><subject>Thailand</subject><subject>Tobacco</subject><subject>Tobacco industry</subject><subject>Tobacco Industry - economics</subject><subject>Tobacco Industry - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Tobacco policy</subject><issn>0964-4563</issn><issn>1468-3318</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkc1u1TAQhS0EopfCIxRFZcMm1BPbid0NQhV_UiUWhXVkO7bIVWKntqPq7rrgIeD1-iQ45JaKbipWs5hvzpmZg9Ax4DcApD5JXkmtvfYuBT-UFQZaYlYB0EdoA7TmJSHAH6MNFjUtKavJAXoW4xZjIA2Dp-igqitKOMAG_bhIMpnSXzkT4vd-Krwt9vpF77o5prA7LWRxc_3Tzq6To3FJDkX2tkOv04L3LplgYrq5_lX4sLIpmEx2fo6FnyYf0uz6tFsIm5Fbg_0Fb5-jJ1YO0bzY10P07cP7r2efyvMvHz-fvTsvFaU8lZwoJbsGS9EQra1hUOlGGq01ho4KYQEbbVTVCWUVBUO6hhmmCWHAQVlODtHrVXcK_nLOK7djH7UZBulMXrUFjnmDRf7Ow2gjBKvzyxf01T106-fg8iGLIFDO6B_B05XSwccYjG2n0I8y7FrA7RJr-2-s7RJru8aah1_uLWY1mu7v6G2OGThagW1MPtz1KadVLXDus7Wvxu3_GP8Gm3nEvQ</recordid><startdate>20160701</startdate><enddate>20160701</enddate><creator>Hogg, Scott L</creator><creator>Hill, Sarah E</creator><creator>Collin, Jeff</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>883</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0F</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160701</creationdate><title>State-ownership of tobacco industry: a ‘fundamental conflict of interest’ or a ‘tremendous opportunity’ for tobacco control?</title><author>Hogg, Scott L ; Hill, Sarah E ; Collin, Jeff</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b448t-83bbad70a973ccfe512c7aeccc01d499f10eceb2d9bfb41e3d75e5c335181bf83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Alcohols</topic><topic>China</topic><topic>Conflict of Interest</topic><topic>Conflicts of interest</topic><topic>Corporations</topic><topic>Government</topic><topic>Health Policy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mediation</topic><topic>Minors</topic><topic>Monopolies</topic><topic>Monopoly</topic><topic>Objectives</topic><topic>Ownership - economics</topic><topic>Ownership - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Privatization</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Public Health - economics</topic><topic>Public Health - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Regulatory legislation</topic><topic>Special communication</topic><topic>Thailand</topic><topic>Tobacco</topic><topic>Tobacco industry</topic><topic>Tobacco Industry - economics</topic><topic>Tobacco Industry - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Tobacco policy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hogg, Scott L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Sarah E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collin, Jeff</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade &amp; Industry (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade &amp; Industry</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Tobacco control</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hogg, Scott L</au><au>Hill, Sarah E</au><au>Collin, Jeff</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>State-ownership of tobacco industry: a ‘fundamental conflict of interest’ or a ‘tremendous opportunity’ for tobacco control?</atitle><jtitle>Tobacco control</jtitle><addtitle>Tob Control</addtitle><date>2016-07-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>367</spage><epage>372</epage><pages>367-372</pages><issn>0964-4563</issn><eissn>1468-3318</eissn><abstract>Despite state-owned tobacco companies (SOTCs) accounting for over 40% of global production, the significance of state-ownership for tobacco control strategies has received limited academic and policy attention. The complex interests associated with SOTCs present diverse challenges for tobacco control policy, particularly in implementing Article 5.3 of WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Based on a review of existing literature, this paper examines current challenges and potential opportunities presented by governmental participation in the tobacco industry, identifying three contrasting perspectives from academic and policy sources. The first two perspectives centre on recognising that economic interests inherent in an SOTC are in tension with a government's public health responsibilities. This conflict can be perceived as either fundamental and fixed (‘intrinsic conflict’) or as amenable to either exacerbation or amelioration via organisational mechanisms (‘institutionally-mediated conflict’)—as suggested by the contrasting examples of China and Thailand. A third, less prominent perspective (which we refer to as ‘interest alignment’) suggests that it may be possible to radically alter the objectives and behaviour of SOTCs in order to advance tobacco control. Finally, we draw on this analysis to consider policy options for advancing tobacco control in countries with SOTCs. Guidance on implementation of Article 5.3 demonstrates strategic ambiguity by including elements of all three perspectives described above. We argue that legislative separation of tobacco control from SOTC oversight provides a desirable alternative to industry privatisation, and that radically realigning the goals of SOTCs to reduce tobacco consumption could make an important contribution to endgame strategies.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group</pub><pmid>26243811</pmid><doi>10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052114</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0964-4563
ispartof Tobacco control, 2016-07, Vol.25 (4), p.367-372
issn 0964-4563
1468-3318
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1808709262
source MEDLINE; BMJ Journals - NESLi2; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Alcohols
China
Conflict of Interest
Conflicts of interest
Corporations
Government
Health Policy
Humans
Mediation
Minors
Monopolies
Monopoly
Objectives
Ownership - economics
Ownership - legislation & jurisprudence
Privatization
Public health
Public Health - economics
Public Health - legislation & jurisprudence
Regulatory legislation
Special communication
Thailand
Tobacco
Tobacco industry
Tobacco Industry - economics
Tobacco Industry - legislation & jurisprudence
Tobacco policy
title State-ownership of tobacco industry: a ‘fundamental conflict of interest’ or a ‘tremendous opportunity’ for tobacco control?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T08%3A48%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=State-ownership%20of%20tobacco%20industry:%20a%20%E2%80%98fundamental%20conflict%20of%20interest%E2%80%99%20or%20a%20%E2%80%98tremendous%20opportunity%E2%80%99%20for%20tobacco%20control?&rft.jtitle=Tobacco%20control&rft.au=Hogg,%20Scott%20L&rft.date=2016-07-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=367&rft.epage=372&rft.pages=367-372&rft.issn=0964-4563&rft.eissn=1468-3318&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052114&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E24842690%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1801485462&rft_id=info:pmid/26243811&rft_jstor_id=24842690&rfr_iscdi=true